5 ms·

Modern censorship at work. People should not forget that Youtube is an extremely left leaning organization and therefore polices videos under that angle. Most

Modern censorship at work. People should not forget that Youtube is an extremely left leaning organization and therefore polices videos under that angle. Most people in tech are left leaning (especially in the Bay area) and as such this is not seen as a big deal, but this censorship is growing and it is one of the biggest democratic danger at the moment.

bllguo 9y ago
Absolute BS. The only reason you would perceive YT to be "left-leaning" is that advertisers in general don't want to be associated with alt-right content. YT is merely mirroring the biases of the advertisers.
- peterhadlaw 9y ago
  A 9th circuit judge (inarguably a left leaning court) has stated in a lawsuit involving Google (YouTube) and PragerU (far from alt-right), that claiming YouTube acts in a neutral way is "puffery" (yes that's a legal term).
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    Source?
    - tomsthumb 9y ago
      https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4421826-Prager-Dismissed.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4421826-Prager-Dismi...
  - asdsa5325 9y ago
    Prager's lawsuit claims that YouTube's censorship is violating their first amendment rights. This is simply bullshit, since first amendment rights don't apply to a private company like YouTube. YouTube has the right to remove / restrict whatever it likes on it's own site.
    - tomsthumb 9y ago
      Your comment is all good and well, but while the tone is dismissive/combative, its content doesn't interact with peterhandlaw's point. Just so you know :)
      - asdsa5325 8y ago
        I'm just practicing my first amendment rights /s It also does, since I was providing the content of the lawsuit that he happened to fail to mention.
        tomsthumb 8y ago
        The context of the lawsuit is irrelevant to the courts statement on puffery aside from being the initiating reason the statement on puffery was made (which we already knew). The court could have made the same statement without Prager filing the suit and it would still be accurate. The context doesn’t change the fact of the statement. So again, your providing context does not change or challenge peterhandlaw’s point r.e. Puffery.
        peterhadlaw 8y ago
        For the record, the utility arguments and size and such put aside (rabbit hole not relevant per say), in general, I don't think a private company should be compelled into any speech (including this lawsuit, which, as of now I probably disagree with.) So to conclude, your context / commentary, although appreciated, does not change my statement.
    - krautsourced 8y ago
      I'm curious: currently I'm sure Youtube relies on the "Safe Harbour" clauses to not be liably for what people post. But once they actively curate the content (and not just for Terms of Service violation but for actual content), does this not mean they would lose this protection?
  - magicalist 9y ago
    > A 9th circuit judge (inarguably a left leaning court) has stated in a lawsuit involving Google (YouTube) and PragerU (far from alt-right), that claiming YouTube acts in a neutral way is "puffery" (yes that's a legal term). No they didn't. The judge wrote that YouTube's marketing statements about hosting a diversity of videos and "giving people a voice" can't be used by the plaintiff to bring a false advertising claim when youtube takes down a video. The judgement is saying that statements that are obviously "puffery" can't be used as the basis for false advertising, not that claiming YouTube "acts in a neutral way" is inherently "puffery": > None of the statements about YouTube’s viewpoint neutrality identified by Plaintiff resembles the kinds of “quantifiable” statements about the “specific or absolute characteristics of a product” that are actionable under the Lanham Act. Newcal Indus., 513 F.3d at 1053. Rather, the statements are vague representations about how YouTube is generally “committed to fostering a community where everyone’s voice can be heard” and providing “opportunities” for people from all over to share their diverse “point[s] of view.” Compl. ¶¶ 3, 28. > The statements do not say anything specific about YouTube’s “mission” to “give people a voice,” and make no concrete and measurable guarantees or representations about the “opportunities” made available for people to express themselves “no matter where they are from or what their age or point of view.” Id. ¶ 28. > As a result, the Court concludes that these statements are neither “[]likely to induce consumer reliance,” Newcal Indus., 513 F.3d at 1053, nor “capable of being proved false,” Coastal Abstract, 173 F.3d at 731, and are therefore non-actionable puffery under the Lanham Act.
- ironjunkie 9y ago
  What about the ban of any gun related videos? Isn't that political censorship? Did you already watch Youtube CEO's (Susan Wojcicki) comments on anything political? Youtube is a private entity and they don't have any obligation to be neutral. They only have to pretend to be.
  - scottie_m 9y ago
    It also isn’t true, or Taofledermaus, and Kirsten Joy Weiss wouldn’t be showing new vids most weeks. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rN2Hkmjt3QA https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rN2Hkmjt3QA
  - krapp 9y ago
    Youtube didn't ban "any" gun related videos. Go there and search. There are plenty of gun related videos, as well as plenty of videos complaining about youtube banning gun videos.
    - post_break 9y ago
      Everything I've read has stated the bans and deletions will go in affect at the end of this month. Down to the wire but if true there will be a lot of "where is your god now?" examples to this idea that YouTube won't enforce its own rules: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7667605?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7667605?hl=en
      - rhcom2 9y ago
        Those rules don't ban everything gun related though, just selling and modification. Although if Forgotten Weapons gets caught up in that because they're for auction that would be a real shame.
        post_break 9y ago
        It wipes out reloading channels which is shame though.
telchar 9y ago
An extremely left leaning organization run by a huge multinational for-profit conglomerate? Perhaps you should look up characteristics of far left organizations. I don't think you know what that term means.
- user23487 9y ago
  Oxford defines "left leaning" as "Sympathetic to or tending toward the left in politics." Just because an organization is run by "a huge multinational for-profit conglomerate" doesn't preclude it from leaning to the left. I'm too lazy to try and find a more recent source, but a 2010 CBS report showed that, of the top 15 recipients of donations from Google execs, 12 of the donations were to Democrats (accounting for about 90% of the donated dollars in the shown group). Sure, that's individuals and not the org, but it clearly indicates that leadership leans left... which means the org does too. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-political-donations-where-company-execs-put-their-cash/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-political-donations-wher...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - dvtv75 9y ago
    56% of donations in 2017 went to the Republicans, and the article below states that while those working within may be "left leaning," the business is moving towards the Republican side of the fence. It's also worth mentioning that the Democrats are right wing to the many nations in the rest of the world. http://www.siliconbeat.com/2017/01/13/google-and-facebook-give-more-to-republicans-than-to-democrats-report/ http://www.siliconbeat.com/2017/01/13/google-and-facebook-gi...
  - gyaru 8y ago
    And democrats somehow equals extremely left leaning? Huh.
krapp 9y ago
>People should not forget that Youtube is an extremely left leaning organization and therefore polices videos under that angle. As I read the article, Youtube is dropping accounts based on potential copyright liability issues or insufficient advertiser appeal. I suppose you must have read between the lines to find the part where it's all really about Youtube's leftist ideology.
my_HN_throwaway 9y ago
Let's forget that the adpocalypse has affected LGBT channels: https://www.autostraddle.com/why-is-youtube-demonetizing-lgbtqia-videos-395058/ https://www.autostraddle.com/why-is-youtube-demonetizing-lgb... Atheist channels: https://www.holykoolaid.com/is-youtube-censoring-atheists/ https://www.holykoolaid.com/is-youtube-censoring-atheists/ And the person who tried to kill YouTube employees was a vegan. It has nothing to do with YouTube and everything to do with advertisers actually having control of what they want their ads to appear on. Somehow everything is a conspiracy against "conservatives." It's so sad that the Party of Reagan has resorted to miring itself in constant outrage. This is an extremely dangerous mindset, this is how you get people to shoot up pizzerias due to nut job conspiracies. http://www.fox5dc.com/news/man-with-rifle-enters-comet-ping-pong-possible-hostage-situation http://www.fox5dc.com/news/man-with-rifle-enters-comet-ping-...
- needToSay 9y ago
  These are vids literally about eating asshole. Ofc they get banned you dumb nigger
- bfuller 8y ago
  why are you making this a partisan issue
chc 9y ago
You can't just take up any horrible position you feel like and require everyone to help you spread it or else they're radically left-wing. For example, I don't think YouTube is going to ban someone for suggesting that we privatize fire departments or for suggesting that universal healthcare is unworkable or for posting an impassioned defense of monarchy, even though these are ideas that radical leftists would view as terrible. As far as I can tell, the people YouTube acts against (where people see left-wing bias) aren't simply suggesting right-wing ideas, they're doing much more harmful things like promoting bigotry and harassment. You can't hide those things behind the label of "right-wing" to pretend like opposition to them is just political partisanship.
BigChiefSmokem 9y ago
The 1st Amendment is a protection against the government censoring speech. Any private or public company has the right to set its policies as it sees fit, as long as no other laws are violated, such anti-discrimination laws (which do not protect political alignments).

bllguo 9y ago

Absolute BS. The only reason you would perceive YT to be "left-leaning" is that advertisers in general don't want to be associated with alt-right content. YT is merely mirroring the biases of the advertisers.

peterhadlaw 9y ago
A 9th circuit judge (inarguably a left leaning court) has stated in a lawsuit involving Google (YouTube) and PragerU (far from alt-right), that claiming YouTube acts in a neutral way is "puffery" (yes that's a legal term).
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  Source?
  - tomsthumb 9y ago
    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4421826-Prager-Dismissed.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4421826-Prager-Dismi...
- asdsa5325 9y ago
  Prager's lawsuit claims that YouTube's censorship is violating their first amendment rights. This is simply bullshit, since first amendment rights don't apply to a private company like YouTube. YouTube has the right to remove / restrict whatever it likes on it's own site.
  - tomsthumb 9y ago
    Your comment is all good and well, but while the tone is dismissive/combative, its content doesn't interact with peterhandlaw's point. Just so you know :)
    - asdsa5325 8y ago
      I'm just practicing my first amendment rights /s It also does, since I was providing the content of the lawsuit that he happened to fail to mention.
      - tomsthumb 8y ago
        The context of the lawsuit is irrelevant to the courts statement on puffery aside from being the initiating reason the statement on puffery was made (which we already knew). The court could have made the same statement without Prager filing the suit and it would still be accurate. The context doesn’t change the fact of the statement. So again, your providing context does not change or challenge peterhandlaw’s point r.e. Puffery.
      - peterhadlaw 8y ago
        For the record, the utility arguments and size and such put aside (rabbit hole not relevant per say), in general, I don't think a private company should be compelled into any speech (including this lawsuit, which, as of now I probably disagree with.) So to conclude, your context / commentary, although appreciated, does not change my statement.
  - krautsourced 8y ago
    I'm curious: currently I'm sure Youtube relies on the "Safe Harbour" clauses to not be liably for what people post. But once they actively curate the content (and not just for Terms of Service violation but for actual content), does this not mean they would lose this protection?
- magicalist 9y ago
  > A 9th circuit judge (inarguably a left leaning court) has stated in a lawsuit involving Google (YouTube) and PragerU (far from alt-right), that claiming YouTube acts in a neutral way is "puffery" (yes that's a legal term). No they didn't. The judge wrote that YouTube's marketing statements about hosting a diversity of videos and "giving people a voice" can't be used by the plaintiff to bring a false advertising claim when youtube takes down a video. The judgement is saying that statements that are obviously "puffery" can't be used as the basis for false advertising, not that claiming YouTube "acts in a neutral way" is inherently "puffery": > None of the statements about YouTube’s viewpoint neutrality identified by Plaintiff resembles the kinds of “quantifiable” statements about the “specific or absolute characteristics of a product” that are actionable under the Lanham Act. Newcal Indus., 513 F.3d at 1053. Rather, the statements are vague representations about how YouTube is generally “committed to fostering a community where everyone’s voice can be heard” and providing “opportunities” for people from all over to share their diverse “point[s] of view.” Compl. ¶¶ 3, 28. > The statements do not say anything specific about YouTube’s “mission” to “give people a voice,” and make no concrete and measurable guarantees or representations about the “opportunities” made available for people to express themselves “no matter where they are from or what their age or point of view.” Id. ¶ 28. > As a result, the Court concludes that these statements are neither “[]likely to induce consumer reliance,” Newcal Indus., 513 F.3d at 1053, nor “capable of being proved false,” Coastal Abstract, 173 F.3d at 731, and are therefore non-actionable puffery under the Lanham Act.
ironjunkie 9y ago
What about the ban of any gun related videos? Isn't that political censorship? Did you already watch Youtube CEO's (Susan Wojcicki) comments on anything political? Youtube is a private entity and they don't have any obligation to be neutral. They only have to pretend to be.
- scottie_m 9y ago
  It also isn’t true, or Taofledermaus, and Kirsten Joy Weiss wouldn’t be showing new vids most weeks. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rN2Hkmjt3QA https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rN2Hkmjt3QA
- krapp 9y ago
  Youtube didn't ban "any" gun related videos. Go there and search. There are plenty of gun related videos, as well as plenty of videos complaining about youtube banning gun videos.
  - post_break 9y ago
    Everything I've read has stated the bans and deletions will go in affect at the end of this month. Down to the wire but if true there will be a lot of "where is your god now?" examples to this idea that YouTube won't enforce its own rules: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7667605?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7667605?hl=en
    - rhcom2 9y ago
      Those rules don't ban everything gun related though, just selling and modification. Although if Forgotten Weapons gets caught up in that because they're for auction that would be a real shame.
      - post_break 9y ago
        It wipes out reloading channels which is shame though.

telchar 9y ago

An extremely left leaning organization run by a huge multinational for-profit conglomerate? Perhaps you should look up characteristics of far left organizations. I don't think you know what that term means.

user23487 9y ago
Oxford defines "left leaning" as "Sympathetic to or tending toward the left in politics." Just because an organization is run by "a huge multinational for-profit conglomerate" doesn't preclude it from leaning to the left. I'm too lazy to try and find a more recent source, but a 2010 CBS report showed that, of the top 15 recipients of donations from Google execs, 12 of the donations were to Democrats (accounting for about 90% of the donated dollars in the shown group). Sure, that's individuals and not the org, but it clearly indicates that leadership leans left... which means the org does too. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-political-donations-where-company-execs-put-their-cash/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-political-donations-wher...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- dvtv75 9y ago
  56% of donations in 2017 went to the Republicans, and the article below states that while those working within may be "left leaning," the business is moving towards the Republican side of the fence. It's also worth mentioning that the Democrats are right wing to the many nations in the rest of the world. http://www.siliconbeat.com/2017/01/13/google-and-facebook-give-more-to-republicans-than-to-democrats-report/ http://www.siliconbeat.com/2017/01/13/google-and-facebook-gi...
- gyaru 8y ago
  And democrats somehow equals extremely left leaning? Huh.

krapp 9y ago

>People should not forget that Youtube is an extremely left leaning organization and therefore polices videos under that angle. As I read the article, Youtube is dropping accounts based on potential copyright liability issues or insufficient advertiser appeal. I suppose you must have read between the lines to find the part where it's all really about Youtube's leftist ideology.

my_HN_throwaway 9y ago

Let's forget that the adpocalypse has affected LGBT channels: https://www.autostraddle.com/why-is-youtube-demonetizing-lgbtqia-videos-395058/ https://www.autostraddle.com/why-is-youtube-demonetizing-lgb... Atheist channels: https://www.holykoolaid.com/is-youtube-censoring-atheists/ https://www.holykoolaid.com/is-youtube-censoring-atheists/ And the person who tried to kill YouTube employees was a vegan. It has nothing to do with YouTube and everything to do with advertisers actually having control of what they want their ads to appear on. Somehow everything is a conspiracy against "conservatives." It's so sad that the Party of Reagan has resorted to miring itself in constant outrage. This is an extremely dangerous mindset, this is how you get people to shoot up pizzerias due to nut job conspiracies. http://www.fox5dc.com/news/man-with-rifle-enters-comet-ping-pong-possible-hostage-situation http://www.fox5dc.com/news/man-with-rifle-enters-comet-ping-...

needToSay 9y ago
These are vids literally about eating asshole. Ofc they get banned you dumb nigger
bfuller 8y ago
why are you making this a partisan issue

chc 9y ago

You can't just take up any horrible position you feel like and require everyone to help you spread it or else they're radically left-wing. For example, I don't think YouTube is going to ban someone for suggesting that we privatize fire departments or for suggesting that universal healthcare is unworkable or for posting an impassioned defense of monarchy, even though these are ideas that radical leftists would view as terrible. As far as I can tell, the people YouTube acts against (where people see left-wing bias) aren't simply suggesting right-wing ideas, they're doing much more harmful things like promoting bigotry and harassment. You can't hide those things behind the label of "right-wing" to pretend like opposition to them is just political partisanship.

BigChiefSmokem 9y ago

The 1st Amendment is a protection against the government censoring speech. Any private or public company has the right to set its policies as it sees fit, as long as no other laws are violated, such anti-discrimination laws (which do not protect political alignments).