3 ms·

In China you would risk being arrested for such a thing. Not just see your channel or video taken down by a platform.

by dgellow 5y ago

daenz 5y ago
Whether it's Huxley or Orwell, they're both dystopias. EDIT>> My mistake, censorship falls clearly under Orwell
- hyperbovine 5y ago
  That’s a dangerous false equivalence.
- _yoqn 5y ago
  Nah, Huxley. Netflix is our Soma.
- dgellow 5y ago
  Honestly, we are so far into what was considered dystopian in the past century, I don’t know if that even make sense to still use that type of categorization. But to actually answer your comment: 1. A company removing proven disinformation is quite far from what censorship is. Also not really something that would be considered dystopian. 2. I would disagree that Orwell work is about “censorship is bad”. His work is IMHO more about exploring risks caused by attempt to do population surveillance and control. Spreading lies and falsehood consistently to destroy any understanding of an actual situation, the way Trump does by lying about election fraud, is way closer to the Orwellian nightmare than YouTube removing that content.
  - daenz 5y ago
    2. It's more extreme than that though. YouTube banned a reputable news source for reporting on a story in which Trump tangentially mentioned election fraud. That's pretty Orwellian imo.
    - dgellow 5y ago
      It's not banned. If you read the source you will see their channel is suspended, meaning it cannot upload for a few days. From the article: > The Hill’s channel is unable to upload new videos for seven days, although its older videos can still be accessed.
_yoqn 5y ago
In Canada you get arrested for peacefully protesting: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/canada-freedom-convoy-protest-arrests-trucks-towed-ottawa-police/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/canada-freedom-convoy-protest-a... Note all the attempts in the article to paint them as "armed" and "extremists". There was no violence, no destruction of property. It was a legal demonstration until it was made illegal by invoking the Emergencies act. And this use of the law in my opinion was an abuse as it clearly is for terrorist threats. Not Canadian working class people peacefully demonstrating.
- dgellow 5y ago
  Using the emergency act was abusive, I would agree. But I don’t believe it was a peaceful protest the way you describe. They were clearly blocking critical infrastructure and hurting the neighborhood. But I don’t see how that’s related to the discussion about YouTube suspending a channel.
- KennyBlanken 5y ago
  Blaring horns and blasting music continuously through the night and day, keeping thousands of people from sleeping is not "peaceful" nor legal. Blocking a nation's highways and borders for weeks is not legal. People screamed blue-bloody-murder when BLM and Occupy protesters chained themselves to barrels across interstates, disrupting traffic for an hour or two...but the Canadian government tolerates a complete shutdown of a border, along with near continuous public disturbance for weeks - before finally clearing the protesters, and that's somehow an example of oppression?
  - _yoqn 5y ago
    ANTIFA and BLM riots caused billions of dollars of damage, destroyed buildings, including federal ones, burned down multiple businesses and involved extensive looting. There were also multiple cold blooded murders and rapes during the riots as well as occupations. The US and Canadian governments did not enact anti-terrorism measures as they did with the truckers. The Canadian truckers picked up the trash. I never saw a cleaner protest.

In China you would risk being arrested for such a thing. Not just see your channel or video taken down by a platform.

daenz 5y ago

Whether it's Huxley or Orwell, they're both dystopias. EDIT>> My mistake, censorship falls clearly under Orwell

hyperbovine 5y ago
That’s a dangerous false equivalence.
_yoqn 5y ago
Nah, Huxley. Netflix is our Soma.
dgellow 5y ago
Honestly, we are so far into what was considered dystopian in the past century, I don’t know if that even make sense to still use that type of categorization. But to actually answer your comment: 1. A company removing proven disinformation is quite far from what censorship is. Also not really something that would be considered dystopian. 2. I would disagree that Orwell work is about “censorship is bad”. His work is IMHO more about exploring risks caused by attempt to do population surveillance and control. Spreading lies and falsehood consistently to destroy any understanding of an actual situation, the way Trump does by lying about election fraud, is way closer to the Orwellian nightmare than YouTube removing that content.
- daenz 5y ago
  2. It's more extreme than that though. YouTube banned a reputable news source for reporting on a story in which Trump tangentially mentioned election fraud. That's pretty Orwellian imo.
  - dgellow 5y ago
    It's not banned. If you read the source you will see their channel is suspended, meaning it cannot upload for a few days. From the article: > The Hill’s channel is unable to upload new videos for seven days, although its older videos can still be accessed.

_yoqn 5y ago

In Canada you get arrested for peacefully protesting: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/canada-freedom-convoy-protest-arrests-trucks-towed-ottawa-police/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/canada-freedom-convoy-protest-a... Note all the attempts in the article to paint them as "armed" and "extremists". There was no violence, no destruction of property. It was a legal demonstration until it was made illegal by invoking the Emergencies act. And this use of the law in my opinion was an abuse as it clearly is for terrorist threats. Not Canadian working class people peacefully demonstrating.

dgellow 5y ago
Using the emergency act was abusive, I would agree. But I don’t believe it was a peaceful protest the way you describe. They were clearly blocking critical infrastructure and hurting the neighborhood. But I don’t see how that’s related to the discussion about YouTube suspending a channel.
KennyBlanken 5y ago
Blaring horns and blasting music continuously through the night and day, keeping thousands of people from sleeping is not "peaceful" nor legal. Blocking a nation's highways and borders for weeks is not legal. People screamed blue-bloody-murder when BLM and Occupy protesters chained themselves to barrels across interstates, disrupting traffic for an hour or two...but the Canadian government tolerates a complete shutdown of a border, along with near continuous public disturbance for weeks - before finally clearing the protesters, and that's somehow an example of oppression?
- _yoqn 5y ago
  ANTIFA and BLM riots caused billions of dollars of damage, destroyed buildings, including federal ones, burned down multiple businesses and involved extensive looting. There were also multiple cold blooded murders and rapes during the riots as well as occupations. The US and Canadian governments did not enact anti-terrorism measures as they did with the truckers. The Canadian truckers picked up the trash. I never saw a cleaner protest.