3 ms·

I think most people when they hear the word "censorship", at least in the US, understand that it's generally not objective and pushing an agenda.

cblconfederate 5y ago
would one say that fox news censors leftist viewpoints?
- lp0_on_fire 5y ago
  No. They have a selection bias because they're pretty anti-leftist but that's different than a purportedly open-platform (like youtube) selectively removing videos from one side of the political spectrum for whatever excuse they can muster.
  - cblconfederate 5y ago
    i 'm sorry i don't see the difference, it's a false "holier-than-thou" narrative . It's akin to how some immigrants call themselves expats Youtube is very evidently not an open platform, they just edit their programming post-upload (should call it post-gramming)
    - lp0_on_fire 5y ago
      You don't see the difference between a news organization with a broadcast license (for those transmitting OTA), anchors, editorial, and research staff and a website that advertises that _anyone with a camera_ can upload content?
      - cblconfederate 5y ago
        America's funniest home videos was similar to youtube. What i dont get is why YouTube is not required to have a tv license
        lp0_on_fire 5y ago
        AFHV had a robust editorial process. They only showed the clips that Bob Saget or his editors picked out. You can upload a video right now to youtube and it is _immediately_ available to anyone who can access the site. It's also really hard to compare the two because one is a scheduled broadcast TV and the other is on demand. The license isn't a function of random people submitting content it's a function of whether you're broadcasting to the airwaves on frequencies controlled by the FCC, which all the major networks do. Media companies that are cable-only or internet-only don't fall under the purview of the FCC. That's why you can't swear on ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS, etc but you can show gratuitous explicative-laden orgies on HBO.
        cblconfederate 5y ago
        youtube auto-identifies music and copyrighted material. It auto-demonetizes (meaning it makes them undiscoverable) a bunch of material from covid related to its favourite flavor of sexual activism, it removes a bunch of stuff after its own moderators review it, it removes another bunch of stuff that other users report, another bunch that various governments' trolls report, and i m sure i m also missing many other cases. Just because they offload a big part of their curation to users doesnt mean it isn't there. In no way can youtube be considered an open forum. There must be a hard threshold above which a platform stops being considered an open forum. Indeed TV license is not the right word, i mean that they should be legally responsible for the content they broadcast the same way that classic broadcasters are. If not in the US, at least i would expect the rest of the world (which has stricter requirements for broadcast TV) to have done that already.

cblconfederate 5y ago

would one say that fox news censors leftist viewpoints?

lp0_on_fire 5y ago
No. They have a selection bias because they're pretty anti-leftist but that's different than a purportedly open-platform (like youtube) selectively removing videos from one side of the political spectrum for whatever excuse they can muster.
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  i 'm sorry i don't see the difference, it's a false "holier-than-thou" narrative . It's akin to how some immigrants call themselves expats Youtube is very evidently not an open platform, they just edit their programming post-upload (should call it post-gramming)
  - lp0_on_fire 5y ago
    You don't see the difference between a news organization with a broadcast license (for those transmitting OTA), anchors, editorial, and research staff and a website that advertises that _anyone with a camera_ can upload content?
    - cblconfederate 5y ago
      America's funniest home videos was similar to youtube. What i dont get is why YouTube is not required to have a tv license
      - lp0_on_fire 5y ago
        AFHV had a robust editorial process. They only showed the clips that Bob Saget or his editors picked out. You can upload a video right now to youtube and it is _immediately_ available to anyone who can access the site. It's also really hard to compare the two because one is a scheduled broadcast TV and the other is on demand. The license isn't a function of random people submitting content it's a function of whether you're broadcasting to the airwaves on frequencies controlled by the FCC, which all the major networks do. Media companies that are cable-only or internet-only don't fall under the purview of the FCC. That's why you can't swear on ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS, etc but you can show gratuitous explicative-laden orgies on HBO.
        cblconfederate 5y ago
        youtube auto-identifies music and copyrighted material. It auto-demonetizes (meaning it makes them undiscoverable) a bunch of material from covid related to its favourite flavor of sexual activism, it removes a bunch of stuff after its own moderators review it, it removes another bunch of stuff that other users report, another bunch that various governments' trolls report, and i m sure i m also missing many other cases. Just because they offload a big part of their curation to users doesnt mean it isn't there. In no way can youtube be considered an open forum. There must be a hard threshold above which a platform stops being considered an open forum. Indeed TV license is not the right word, i mean that they should be legally responsible for the content they broadcast the same way that classic broadcasters are. If not in the US, at least i would expect the rest of the world (which has stricter requirements for broadcast TV) to have done that already.