8 ms·

It's literally censorship. It doesn't stop being censorship just because you want it censored. Trying to redefine words like that insults your readers. People

It's literally censorship. It doesn't stop being censorship just because you want it censored. Trying to redefine words like that insults your readers. People might consider your position a bit more if it's not obscured by your ego.

keymone 5y ago
It's censorship of enemy's propaganda vehicle. Since when is that considered "bad"?
- shabier 5y ago
  Yeah, sure, let's completely depend on our own honest media rather than being able to cross-check it with opposing parties. It surely won't create an echo chamber wherein our own media could report whatever they want, it surely won't result in less objective reporting and more propaganda.
  - keymone 5y ago
    the issue now is not "how good of a reporting does this or that media produce?" the issue is "a literal fascist government is invading a sovereign country and their propaganda machine is in full throttle mode".
    - shabier 5y ago
      > the issue is "a literal fascist government is invading a sovereign country and their propaganda machine is in full throttle mode". Explain to me how you would come to that conclusion if it wasn't for the media? And how would you justify spreading that information if it came from "not really accurate or objective" media? Without being able to cross-check, you're just spreading one-sided gossip, if not rumors like the snake island story.
      - keymone 5y ago
        i am ukrainian and i am in contact with multiple people affected on the ground.
        shabier 5y ago
        keymone 5y ago
        > doesn't make your take any more credible it makes my awareness of the situation on the ground stronger > 1) support censorship of enemy's propaganda vehicle. wonder why would you omit that little fact. getting paid to do so? > 2) don't care to verify stories you lying sack of shit. > 3) are under the impression that being Ukrainian makes your take automatically truthful you lying sack of shit.
        shabier 5y ago
        keymone 5y ago
        do you deny that RT is russian government propaganda vehicle?
        shabier 5y ago
        keymone 5y ago
        shabier 5y ago
Steltek 5y ago
No, it's literally moderation. Platforms can promote or demote content as they see fit to better appeal to the market. Newspapers are not obligated to print every letter to the editor. Youtube is not legally bound to air any random video that was uploaded. Censorship is when the government steps in to define allowable speech.
- ZGDUwpqEWpUZ 5y ago
  Of course they have the right - nobody has claimed that YouTube is breaking the law by censoring RT. Nevertheless, they are still engaging in censorship, per Wikipedia: > Governments and private organizations may engage in censorship. Other groups or institutions may propose and petition for censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of his or her own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship You are doing exactly what I just warned against: trying to redefine words to exempt yourself from criticism. It's insulting. Nobody has said or implied that YouTube is breaking the law here, so why does your reply hinge on that? More importantly, why would anyone want such a shameless megalomaniac filtering what they can read and watch? That's the crux of censorship: you're not just refusing to personally host some content - you're demanding everyone else does the same in order to ensure that it's not available at all. The merits of censoring an enemy propaganda outlet during a war can be debated, but pretending that it isn't censorship at all is equal parts absurd and dangerous.
- foverzar 5y ago
  > Youtube is not legally bound to air any random video that was uploaded. Although, given that it's not a newspaper, but rather a massive telecom service, it should be. > Censorship is when the government steps in to define allowable speech Censorship is not a technicality, and if someone is capable of doing a mass filtering of opinions, it's still censorship. And given that the government can pressure private entities into practical censorship (congress hearings on how facebook does a bad job of filtering alternative opinions on controversial topics), the technicality part is so thin that there is no real practical difference, except maybe you don't even have any legal way to challenge it, given that there is no legislation.

keymone 5y ago

It's censorship of enemy's propaganda vehicle. Since when is that considered "bad"?

shabier 5y ago
Yeah, sure, let's completely depend on our own honest media rather than being able to cross-check it with opposing parties. It surely won't create an echo chamber wherein our own media could report whatever they want, it surely won't result in less objective reporting and more propaganda.
- keymone 5y ago
  the issue now is not "how good of a reporting does this or that media produce?" the issue is "a literal fascist government is invading a sovereign country and their propaganda machine is in full throttle mode".
  - shabier 5y ago
    > the issue is "a literal fascist government is invading a sovereign country and their propaganda machine is in full throttle mode". Explain to me how you would come to that conclusion if it wasn't for the media? And how would you justify spreading that information if it came from "not really accurate or objective" media? Without being able to cross-check, you're just spreading one-sided gossip, if not rumors like the snake island story.
    - keymone 5y ago
      i am ukrainian and i am in contact with multiple people affected on the ground.
      - shabier 5y ago
        keymone 5y ago
        > doesn't make your take any more credible it makes my awareness of the situation on the ground stronger > 1) support censorship of enemy's propaganda vehicle. wonder why would you omit that little fact. getting paid to do so? > 2) don't care to verify stories you lying sack of shit. > 3) are under the impression that being Ukrainian makes your take automatically truthful you lying sack of shit.
        shabier 5y ago
        keymone 5y ago
        do you deny that RT is russian government propaganda vehicle?
        shabier 5y ago
        keymone 5y ago
        shabier 5y ago

Steltek 5y ago

No, it's literally moderation. Platforms can promote or demote content as they see fit to better appeal to the market. Newspapers are not obligated to print every letter to the editor. Youtube is not legally bound to air any random video that was uploaded. Censorship is when the government steps in to define allowable speech.

ZGDUwpqEWpUZ 5y ago
Of course they have the right - nobody has claimed that YouTube is breaking the law by censoring RT. Nevertheless, they are still engaging in censorship, per Wikipedia: > Governments and private organizations may engage in censorship. Other groups or institutions may propose and petition for censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of his or her own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship You are doing exactly what I just warned against: trying to redefine words to exempt yourself from criticism. It's insulting. Nobody has said or implied that YouTube is breaking the law here, so why does your reply hinge on that? More importantly, why would anyone want such a shameless megalomaniac filtering what they can read and watch? That's the crux of censorship: you're not just refusing to personally host some content - you're demanding everyone else does the same in order to ensure that it's not available at all. The merits of censoring an enemy propaganda outlet during a war can be debated, but pretending that it isn't censorship at all is equal parts absurd and dangerous.
foverzar 5y ago
> Youtube is not legally bound to air any random video that was uploaded. Although, given that it's not a newspaper, but rather a massive telecom service, it should be. > Censorship is when the government steps in to define allowable speech Censorship is not a technicality, and if someone is capable of doing a mass filtering of opinions, it's still censorship. And given that the government can pressure private entities into practical censorship (congress hearings on how facebook does a bad job of filtering alternative opinions on controversial topics), the technicality part is so thin that there is no real practical difference, except maybe you don't even have any legal way to challenge it, given that there is no legislation.