5 ms·

> In an emailed statement, a YouTube spokesperson said the company was "terminating the Tenet Media channel and four channels operated by its owner Lauren Chen

by sgbeal 2y ago

> In an emailed statement, a YouTube spokesperson said the company was "terminating the Tenet Media channel and four channels operated by its owner Lauren Chen as part of our ongoing efforts to combat coordinated influence operations," FWIW, "coordinated influence operations" precisely describes the formal education systems used worldwide (including home-schooling, which is required to teach topics set by a regional authority). It also precisely describes the basis of the majority of Google/YouTube's funding: advertising. Just sayin'.

thomassmith65 2y ago
Youtube already has 100x the dopey creators it needs to turn a profit. Why bother with those the DOJ indicts for covering up illegal funding?
- sgbeal 2y ago
  A) So much for "innocent until proven guilty by a court of law," as opposed to "court of public opinion." B) If "coordinated influence operations" is against YouTube's terms of service then they need to shut down all educational videos, as well as any hosted by "social media influencers." All such content is inherently there to influence the viewer.
  - thomassmith65 2y ago
    Russia is not some brand pushing toothpaste or cola. It's a hostile oligarchy and currently under embargo. My comment didn't actually claim there was a conviction, but given the text of the indictment, there will be. Youtube knows this will end with Chen and Donavan in jail (unless they flee to Russia) and it's a bad look to continue hosting their content. There's plenty of other wingnut vloggers waiting in the wings; Youtube won't lose viewership.
    - thomassmith65 2y ago
      Chen and Donavan in jail Mea culpa: in fact, DOJ is only charging Kalashnikov and Afanasyeva. Oops!
maximinus_thrax 2y ago
> FWIW, "coordinated influence operations" precisely describes the formal education systems used worldwide And yet, very few of those are functioning in violation of FARA. Just saying'.
- sgbeal 2y ago
  > And yet, very few of those are functioning in violation of FARA. Again: "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."
  - maximinus_thrax 2y ago
    This is not a court of law, it's a private company trying to offload some legal kryptonite. Google can be innocent until proven guilty as well, and the government may try to investigate that. Google doesn't really want this, so they decided to promptly cut ties when faced with credible evidence that their users allegedly broke the law. Same as with free speech, Google is not the government, so for better or worse, they're not the guardians of ideas like the one you mentioned. Society also doesn't really give a shit about "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." so I don't understand why Google would be held to a higher standard in how they're choosing who to host on their platform. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not a fan of Google. But left-and-right there's tons of whataboutism and 'tu quoque' bullshit in reaction to something which may very well become a case of treason. I mean comparing what RT did with homeschooling material is not only a bad faith argument, it's downright insulting.
    - sgbeal 2y ago
      > This is not a court of law, Precisely. The DOJ makes an accusation and the party in question is immediately treated as radioactive. Youtube's excuse for cutting them off ("coordinated influence operations") is so vague as to apply to almost any content ever posted by anyone. Every online post is "coordinated," in the sense that someone spent time and effort to get it into place. Every post which attempts to teach new information and/or sway an opinion is an "influence operation," in that they are attempting to get new/different information into peoples' minds. If _that's_ the excuse they're going to use then, for the sake of consistency, they need to excise some large majority of their content. Alternately (and preferably), they should find an excuse which isn't so nebulous. > I mean comparing what RT did with homeschooling material is not only a bad faith argument, it's downright insulting. i have no idea what an RT is, and don't know a single thing about the accused party in this case aside from the fact that "DOJ accuses so Youtube cancels." My point has nothing at all to do with them, per se. It is entirely about the hand-wavy excuse Youtube is using to cancel them (whoever they are and whatever they've done, none of which concern me). Please explain to us how schooling, as a whole, is _not_ (to use Youtube's term) a "coordinated influence operation." Ignore, if you will, the context of this particular usage by Youtube because this instance _is not the point_. The point is the overly-wide applicability of their excuse.

by sgbeal 2y ago

thomassmith65 2y ago

Youtube already has 100x the dopey creators it needs to turn a profit. Why bother with those the DOJ indicts for covering up illegal funding?

sgbeal 2y ago
A) So much for "innocent until proven guilty by a court of law," as opposed to "court of public opinion." B) If "coordinated influence operations" is against YouTube's terms of service then they need to shut down all educational videos, as well as any hosted by "social media influencers." All such content is inherently there to influence the viewer.
- thomassmith65 2y ago
  Russia is not some brand pushing toothpaste or cola. It's a hostile oligarchy and currently under embargo. My comment didn't actually claim there was a conviction, but given the text of the indictment, there will be. Youtube knows this will end with Chen and Donavan in jail (unless they flee to Russia) and it's a bad look to continue hosting their content. There's plenty of other wingnut vloggers waiting in the wings; Youtube won't lose viewership.
  - thomassmith65 2y ago
    Chen and Donavan in jail Mea culpa: in fact, DOJ is only charging Kalashnikov and Afanasyeva. Oops!

maximinus_thrax 2y ago

> FWIW, "coordinated influence operations" precisely describes the formal education systems used worldwide And yet, very few of those are functioning in violation of FARA. Just saying'.

sgbeal 2y ago
> And yet, very few of those are functioning in violation of FARA. Again: "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."
- maximinus_thrax 2y ago
  This is not a court of law, it's a private company trying to offload some legal kryptonite. Google can be innocent until proven guilty as well, and the government may try to investigate that. Google doesn't really want this, so they decided to promptly cut ties when faced with credible evidence that their users allegedly broke the law. Same as with free speech, Google is not the government, so for better or worse, they're not the guardians of ideas like the one you mentioned. Society also doesn't really give a shit about "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." so I don't understand why Google would be held to a higher standard in how they're choosing who to host on their platform. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not a fan of Google. But left-and-right there's tons of whataboutism and 'tu quoque' bullshit in reaction to something which may very well become a case of treason. I mean comparing what RT did with homeschooling material is not only a bad faith argument, it's downright insulting.
  - sgbeal 2y ago
    > This is not a court of law, Precisely. The DOJ makes an accusation and the party in question is immediately treated as radioactive. Youtube's excuse for cutting them off ("coordinated influence operations") is so vague as to apply to almost any content ever posted by anyone. Every online post is "coordinated," in the sense that someone spent time and effort to get it into place. Every post which attempts to teach new information and/or sway an opinion is an "influence operation," in that they are attempting to get new/different information into peoples' minds. If _that's_ the excuse they're going to use then, for the sake of consistency, they need to excise some large majority of their content. Alternately (and preferably), they should find an excuse which isn't so nebulous. > I mean comparing what RT did with homeschooling material is not only a bad faith argument, it's downright insulting. i have no idea what an RT is, and don't know a single thing about the accused party in this case aside from the fact that "DOJ accuses so Youtube cancels." My point has nothing at all to do with them, per se. It is entirely about the hand-wavy excuse Youtube is using to cancel them (whoever they are and whatever they've done, none of which concern me). Please explain to us how schooling, as a whole, is _not_ (to use Youtube's term) a "coordinated influence operation." Ignore, if you will, the context of this particular usage by Youtube because this instance _is not the point_. The point is the overly-wide applicability of their excuse.