4 ms·

They went against a government narrative. This wasn't Google/Youtube banning so much as government ordering private companies to do so.

stronglikedan 1y ago
[flagged]
- 3cKU 1y ago
  [flagged]
LeafItAlone 1y ago
And do you think the impetuous behind this action happening now is any different? In both cases YouTube is just doing what the government wants.
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> wasn't Google/Youtube banning so much as government ordering private companies to do so No, it was not. It’s particularly silly to suggest this when we have live example of such orders right now. The companies were nudged. (And they were wrong to respond to public pressure.) The President, after all, has a “bully pulpit.” But there were no orders, no credibly threats and plenty of companies didn’t deplatform these folks.
- starik36 1y ago
  That was certainly the case with Twitter. It came out during the congressional hearings. FBI had a direct line to the decision makers.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > was certainly the case with Twitter It was not. No threats were made, and Twitter didn’t blindly follow the FBI’s guidance. The simple truth is the leftist elements that wanted to control the debate were there in the White House and in Twitter’s San Francisco offices. Nobody had to be coerced, they were coördinating.
  - brokencode 1y ago
    A direct line to threaten decision makers? Or to point out possible misinformation spreaders?
    - starik36 1y ago
      Threaten. Because of the implication.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Because of the implication What was the implication? Twitter had no business in front of the federal government. They were wilfully complying. That doesn't make it okay. But it's a total retconning of actual history to suggest this was government censorship in any form.
      - dotnet00 1y ago
        Musk owned Twitter for years of the Biden admin, at least one year of that was him openly simping for Trump. So... what sort of threat was this, that suddenly disappeared when Musk bought it? How credible was the threat if Musk was able to release the Twitter Files without repercussions from the Biden admin?
        starik36 1y ago
        The Twitter files happened before Elon. He stopped it once he got in. And the implication of repercussions were for employees that were in charge of removing content. Not for the head honchos.
        dotnet00 1y ago
        What were those repercussions? Besides just being fired for not doing what their employer wanted (indicating complicity from the company rather than pressure from the government)?
      - brokencode 1y ago
        Do you think Elon would ever shut up about it if he was getting threatened by Biden and the FBI?
- spullara 1y ago
  They literally had access to JIRA at Twitter so they could file tickets against accounts.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > literally had access to JIRA at Twitter so they could file tickets against accounts I’m not disputing that they coördinated. I’m challenging that they were coerced. We wouldn’t describe Fox News altering a script on account of a friendly call from Miller and friends the “government ordering private companies” around. (Or, say, Florida opening their criminal justice records to ICE the federal government ordering states around.) Twitter’s leadership and the Biden administration saw eye to eye. This is a story about a media monoculture and private censorship, not government censorship.
    - frollogaston 1y ago
      YouTube using its prime homepage real estate for videos telling people to get vaccinated, which also pissed off the target audience, didn't seem like just some opinionated YouTube exec's doing.
  - unethical_ban 1y ago
    Do you think no nefarious nation state actors are on social media spinning disinformation?
    - EasyMark 1y ago
      It's extremely obvious on twitter. blue check accounts that post every few minutes 24/7 with profiles that say stuff like "true believer, wife, lover, seeker-of-truth. Don't DM me, I don't answer" . They are on there in the hundreds of thousands.
- EasyMark 1y ago
  That's what I told my MAGA friends. Biden recommended stuff, Trump threatens stuff. So far only one of them has followed through with action. Trump has threatened business deals and prosecution, and is currently sending government after his opponents with the DoJ. Yet those same people are as quiet as mice now on "government bullying"
- nailer 1y ago
  Zuckerberg mentioned meta were getting government employees that were calling Facebook absolutely furious, and when they didn’t take down legal speech administration did not approve of, there was an immediate investigation launched into Meta that he considers retaliatory. https://apnews.com/article/meta-platforms-mark-zuckerberg-biden-facebook-covid19-463ac6e125b0d004b16c7943633673fc https://apnews.com/article/meta-platforms-mark-zuckerberg-bi... https://open.spotify.com/episode/3kDr0LcmqOHOz3mBHMdDuV?si=jdHDMjB-RbCtrywzXQW4Pw https://open.spotify.com/episode/3kDr0LcmqOHOz3mBHMdDuV?si=j...

stronglikedan 1y ago

[flagged]

3cKU 1y ago
[flagged]

LeafItAlone 1y ago

And do you think the impetuous behind this action happening now is any different? In both cases YouTube is just doing what the government wants.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> wasn't Google/Youtube banning so much as government ordering private companies to do so No, it was not. It’s particularly silly to suggest this when we have live example of such orders right now. The companies were nudged. (And they were wrong to respond to public pressure.) The President, after all, has a “bully pulpit.” But there were no orders, no credibly threats and plenty of companies didn’t deplatform these folks.

starik36 1y ago
That was certainly the case with Twitter. It came out during the congressional hearings. FBI had a direct line to the decision makers.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > was certainly the case with Twitter It was not. No threats were made, and Twitter didn’t blindly follow the FBI’s guidance. The simple truth is the leftist elements that wanted to control the debate were there in the White House and in Twitter’s San Francisco offices. Nobody had to be coerced, they were coördinating.
- brokencode 1y ago
  A direct line to threaten decision makers? Or to point out possible misinformation spreaders?
  - starik36 1y ago
    Threaten. Because of the implication.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > Because of the implication What was the implication? Twitter had no business in front of the federal government. They were wilfully complying. That doesn't make it okay. But it's a total retconning of actual history to suggest this was government censorship in any form.
    - dotnet00 1y ago
      Musk owned Twitter for years of the Biden admin, at least one year of that was him openly simping for Trump. So... what sort of threat was this, that suddenly disappeared when Musk bought it? How credible was the threat if Musk was able to release the Twitter Files without repercussions from the Biden admin?
      - starik36 1y ago
        The Twitter files happened before Elon. He stopped it once he got in. And the implication of repercussions were for employees that were in charge of removing content. Not for the head honchos.
        dotnet00 1y ago
        What were those repercussions? Besides just being fired for not doing what their employer wanted (indicating complicity from the company rather than pressure from the government)?
    - brokencode 1y ago
      Do you think Elon would ever shut up about it if he was getting threatened by Biden and the FBI?
spullara 1y ago
They literally had access to JIRA at Twitter so they could file tickets against accounts.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > literally had access to JIRA at Twitter so they could file tickets against accounts I’m not disputing that they coördinated. I’m challenging that they were coerced. We wouldn’t describe Fox News altering a script on account of a friendly call from Miller and friends the “government ordering private companies” around. (Or, say, Florida opening their criminal justice records to ICE the federal government ordering states around.) Twitter’s leadership and the Biden administration saw eye to eye. This is a story about a media monoculture and private censorship, not government censorship.
  - frollogaston 1y ago
    YouTube using its prime homepage real estate for videos telling people to get vaccinated, which also pissed off the target audience, didn't seem like just some opinionated YouTube exec's doing.
- unethical_ban 1y ago
  Do you think no nefarious nation state actors are on social media spinning disinformation?
  - EasyMark 1y ago
    It's extremely obvious on twitter. blue check accounts that post every few minutes 24/7 with profiles that say stuff like "true believer, wife, lover, seeker-of-truth. Don't DM me, I don't answer" . They are on there in the hundreds of thousands.
EasyMark 1y ago
That's what I told my MAGA friends. Biden recommended stuff, Trump threatens stuff. So far only one of them has followed through with action. Trump has threatened business deals and prosecution, and is currently sending government after his opponents with the DoJ. Yet those same people are as quiet as mice now on "government bullying"
nailer 1y ago
Zuckerberg mentioned meta were getting government employees that were calling Facebook absolutely furious, and when they didn’t take down legal speech administration did not approve of, there was an immediate investigation launched into Meta that he considers retaliatory. https://apnews.com/article/meta-platforms-mark-zuckerberg-biden-facebook-covid19-463ac6e125b0d004b16c7943633673fc https://apnews.com/article/meta-platforms-mark-zuckerberg-bi... https://open.spotify.com/episode/3kDr0LcmqOHOz3mBHMdDuV?si=jdHDMjB-RbCtrywzXQW4Pw https://open.spotify.com/episode/3kDr0LcmqOHOz3mBHMdDuV?si=j...