3 ms·
YouTube to shift video flagging powers towards NGOs and Government Agencies
- phendrenad2 5y agoGoogle has had 10 years of experience censoring the internet in China, and they're just trying to be first to market with a viable censorship package for western governments, should they go full great-firewall-style censorship. It's just good business.
- gruez 5y ago>Google has had 10 years of experience censoring the internet in China Why would they have that when they're banned in china?
- verisimi 5y agoIts getting harder to argue that big corporations and government aren't working together to manage the people. Its pretty clear where the mainstream news source take directions from, and now YouTube is making it clear too. Its not surprising that people who have something to say are leaving (or are forced to leave) in droves.
- DontMindit 5y agoIt has always been this way. Even the church and its policy of marriage are intermingled with the government and the three way contracts each participant signs in law. This is to enforce a form of communism on men on an individual basis one by one because it was not feasible yet to do it universally but we're heading there. There are discussions now of marriage becoming opt-out instead of opt-in when cohabitating. The media , the church, the corporations, the government , all of these things are controlled by Satan secretly.
- tus666 5y agoDifficult to see how a government agency would not be breaching the first amendment by doing that.
- dredmorbius 5y ago1. Flagging != removal. Flagging raises awareness of issues with content to the actual moderation team and/or algorith. The removal process remains with YouTube. 2. There are governments not subject to the US Constitution and its First Amendment. The actual story here is that flagging seems to be increasingly a capability that's being withdrawn from ordinary, or even selectively chosen, YouTube users, and instead is being permitted only to specifically chosen groups and organisations.
- tus666 5y ago1. I doubt such a facile argument would fly in court. 2. True.
- dredmorbius 5y agoCan you cite any cases in which expressing an opinion via a government agency or office has been deemed a 1st amendment infringement in the US?
- tus666 5y agoYou obviously have a poor understanding of the law, because intent matters. Flagging content with the intention of having it censored or removed would certainly fall foul of the constitution.
- dredmorbius 5y agoIt seems you didn't understand my question, as that's not at all what I'd said, nor asked. Do you in fact have a precedential case citation?
- tus666 5y agoDo I need one to have an opinion on the law or what might result? No I don't.