You should absolutely be just fine for UA-cam to censor. It’s their platform. Of course if you remove their ability to censor on their own platform, then you absolutely have to remove any accountability whatsoever. They can no longer be sued due to harmful content. So if they allow racist rhetoric and other such content, you can get upset with them because they allow it. It’s funny because a lot of people are against until something starts very negatively affecting them. Then they want it removed.
Nope, its like being a fly on the wall of someone's mind on what they think on ideas old or new proven, smart or stupid, real or imagined. Media in general, though people getting rude as hell, has opened up 3 fold, what the comedians were begino gbto get us to in acceptance and tolerance or color, gender, life style but in real life, not just in amusing folk. From Milton Burle, Flip Wilson to Ru Paul for ideas of trans, cross dress, drag, those militon against with broken minds become bullying terrorists, but the majority open and become accepting of others, those feeling these ways get the noose off their necks for feeling different, etc, sure you get weird archaic thought back like flat earth though both big faith and science faith say different, but point it ability to see everyone's idea, not all on same place in knowledge yet, not all the same in morality or ideologies, everyone different, but all the same as basics with ability to think, have a body, dress, eat, etc..but even like clothes or food its all different
Places like youtube, facebook etc should be determined public forums/utilities. What they’re doing is just as wrong as electric companies turning off your heat in winter because they don’t like your views.
I agree with Amazon’s early philosophy. “As opposed to silencing speech, let speech answer speech.” That doesn’t work out well when all you have are lies. Liars must censor or lose.
There’s a 2000 year old blueprint for *LOCAL* assembly left by the apostles that is the only hope of a censorship free forum and very few seem the wiser. We attempt to address this on our homemade website linked in the About section of our channel.
People should have the right to post what they see fit without interference or any sort of censorship. Its cowardly and unconstitutional. If its "misinformation" then let speech respond to speech.
yup, and if it is "misinformation" the creator is to be held responsible (not youtube) (and I think that is the case ) so why does yt have to be the moral police?
@@MrSpyrud They are a business, making business decisions. You're free to stop using them if you don't like their decisions. This is how the free market works.
Yeah UA-cam's terms of service is so vague and they use that at their whim to what they allow but I'm for freedom of speech because more speech is ALWAYS better than less speech CMM
censorship is willful ignorance, nothing more....... nothing should ever be censored, no exception. If some one dosnt like what some one says, or writes, they can always choose not to listen to or read it.......especially online....... PROBLEM SOLVED!
This is a tough question to answer. I am definitely on the side of no censorship you should have freedom of speech 100% but on the other hand if I owned a business I would want 100% control over it because my business is like my home, If I didn’t like someone that I invited into my home I have the right to ask them to leave.
That's how I view it with people's individuals' channels. UA-cam is the community we reside in, and our channels are our houses. We should be able to run our houses however we want, and the community itself should simply be a platform that is not liable for its residents' thoughts. Plus, if we allow extremist ideals to be publicly available to be discovered, we can be better informed and better able to track them. I do not believe that extremism being seen will itself lead to extremism, that people not already inclined towards that will simply inform themselves, and that it is important to be able to see the bad parts of society.
It's always a contentious issue, this. In any case, I DON'T think that UA-cam CEO Susan Wojcicki deserves her "Free Expression" award. I applaud her efforts to combat hate speech and deliberate malevolent misinformation on the platform, but she has put large media companies' interests before those of independent creators. Just look at how she mishandled Adpocalypse and the COPPA lawsuit. In addition, independent journalism is a good thing, even if it's not necessarily rooted in fact. However, Wojcicki and company have tried to shove news from large corporations in our face. Supposedly it's being done to "combat misinformation" with more "authoritative" news sources...but we all know the _real_ rea$on why. Also, the organization that gives out that "award" is sponsored by UA-cam itself...which essentially means that Wojcicki and UA-cam "bought" that prize.
Morality is as much a human construct as laws are. Everything is a human construct, things mankind devised to understand the world. LOL What's wrong with you?
I don't like it, but it is their platform and they do allow you to post for free. Therefore they have a right to say what can be allowed and disallowed.
What SHOULD NOT be allowed is anything meant to harm others, and that includes lies from politicians that incite riots..>JANUARY 6th is a prime example. They should NOT be censoring language, for instance. This USED to be about broadcasting yourself; that WAS their slogan. Now it's more like Broadcast yourself in a saccharin wholesome family-friendly way.
January 6 in Washington DC Donald Trump did NOT incite the crowd! I was supposed to be there. I have a friend who lives there so I was invited! If not for COVID I WOULDA been there.. The Stop the Steal people were planning to attend, yes, but ANTIFA and the BlackLivesMatter Marxist goons also planned to be there so they DID show up and it was mostly those thugs causing the trouble.Most of the Trumpers were farther back and could not even get on the Capitol property..The Trump fans were not the problem for the most part. Plus many Capitol police were acting friendly and were actually helping people up and over the barricades. at first the police thought it was just a happy energetic enthusiastic crowd who loved trump and were exercising their patriotic First Amendment right to peaceful protest. and lawful public assembly. If I were there with my laptop filming for my UA-cam channel and a policeman held out his hand to come on up damn right i would have. If i am invited sure I'll go. But them will they call what I was doing "trespassing"? How can it be trespassing if you were let in? Helped up then let in. And so may people all over the country were snitching out anyone who was bragging that they were there.Lots of folks are still in jail over this. It was and is a witch hunt against Trump supporters and that is wrong. Go after the violent ANTIFA thugs Go after BlackLivesMatter!!!!! THEY were the ones tearing down statues and burning buildings in Washington DC!!!! My good friend lives there and volunteers @ the Peace Vigil in Lafayette Park and he saw a lot. Do not blame President Trump just because YOU hate him!!!!!! I am glad I stayed home to take care of my mother.She is 80 and I did not want to spread COVID to her! Now I;m glad we all got vaccinated. I can't wait to go back to Washington DC... but i wanna wait til this COVID dies down and the Trump haters are gone. I always wear political shirts when I go to DC. I don;t need targets on my back.
All censorship is bad, because it turns into policing speech no matter what. In America, corporations are essentially people, and they have as many rights as people do. So if you insult or make fun of a person, that's fine, but if that person has a business, or a brand based off themselves, like oh say the Kardashians, then if you insult them, they can sue you for defamation, because if you make fun of them they can make that apply to their business and their sales in some way. Let me know if I'm wrong so I can learn.
Censorship should be used if necessary! Like if someone is threatening you or your family's life. That's the only time I believe Censorship is necessary
they'll censor just about anyone who's being critical on someone who deserves negative criticism, no matter how monetarily powerful they may be (money can't buy immortality).
You should be able to say anything you want. I agree that racist comments, comments about kids should be taken down and that’s about it. If I want to say 90% of this covid is a scam. I should be able to. If I’m a doctor and I believe makes dont work I should be able to debate that.
If the censorship is targeting inciting riots or a form of violence, here the crime has already been committed, this can also be used in a court as evidence. The same goes with direct hate or verbal acts of violence. Those two acts would get someone arrested if done on the street. A phone is a private and targeted audience, UA-cam is a public untargeted audience, here a crime is being talked about but may or not have been committed or being committed.
"The Answer is YES" The problem is competition...or the lack thereof. EDIT: If there was actual competition at scale that didn't censor VS current UA-cam censorship we might not have an issue with this platforms lack of freedom of speech. The problem begins with our dependency to networks that we view as not having a viable alternative.
It’s impossible for there to be a video sharing site as big as UA-cam that doesn’t moderate and remove content. Such as site would be regulated out of existence.
I guess it would depend on what is and isn't acceptable. I remember reading something about the Community Guidelines on UA-cam saying we can't talk ill about various groups of people. Around a month ago, I posted a video about how I found out about LBGT representation and how it broadened my horizons. I didn't put anyone down, but I did talk about my opinions on it.
i would say all censorship is bad but then there would be bot's spamming scam videos. so the real question in how to get the best crimefighting effect of censorship but still have as much of expression freedom as possible. also i personaly don't think that hate speech exists becose what somoe considers hate is subjective.
Censorship, when reasonably relevant, is one thing. Such as a segment of Ellen DeGeneres if/when a guest spits f this and b that and what's recorded and uploaded is the same as what goes on TV so it has the beep in place of the language. The beeps are at least because it's a daytime show that kids could be watching or at least hearing. Otherwise, there are ridiculous laws that literally illegitimately override constitutional law. It makes sense that constitutional law can't be overridden as it's a set of RIGHTS that are a set of laws. Even an employee swearing at a supervisor is subject to termination, direct insubordination. If there are to be ANY exceptions to ANY constitutional law then it needs to be written in somehow. Freedom of Speech, constitutional law, can't be overridden. Yet such disrespect as attacks, harassment and bullying are illegal. Each of these can be done verbally, which is relevant under Freedom of Speech. ARGH
The First Amendment protects people from the government only. That's what so many people don't understand. Someone getting fired by their private employer is not a Constitutional violation.
Let's try this a 4th time. Maybe it's reading as spam. I don't know. Anyway... Just as I can kick you out of my house if I don't like what you say in my house, youtube can kick you or your content off of their platform. UA-cam doesn't allow p...graphy on their site and they don't have to. P...hub can take down your content if you're wearing too many clothes in your video if they wanted to. It's their site, they can do whatever they want with it. If they decided tomorrow they're only going to allow vids about farm equipment, they could. The bottom line is, people clearly don't understand the difference between a private company and the government, and a lawyer (who should know the difference) is emboldening these entitled children. It makes me want to bang my head on a spike.... if I filmed it, however, youtube wouldn't allow it to be posted because they have the right to determine what kind of content they want on their site.
I think it should purely be governed by the law of the land! any social media platform should not have the liberty to tailor the content in any circumstance. What is legal (or illegal) otherwise should be legal (or illegal) on YT and this should be territory specific, not that YT can impose US laws to other countries.
But the funny part is that yt can only identify "Hate speech" and "misinformation" which doesn't suit its agenda (I don't know what the agenda is though) but it can conveniently ignore the "Hate speech" and "misinformation" that suits it. And the thing can go on for decades with millions of views without yt being "protective" for its audiences
I argue for NO CENSORSHIP!!! My Screen Name/User Name/Channel Name is actually unable to be spoken aloud by people who want to stay monetized. SCREW THAT!!!
Should UA-cam be able to censor what YOU say?
no they cannot.
You should absolutely be just fine for UA-cam to censor. It’s their platform. Of course if you remove their ability to censor on their own platform, then you absolutely have to remove any accountability whatsoever. They can no longer be sued due to harmful content. So if they allow racist rhetoric and other such content, you can get upset with them because they allow it.
It’s funny because a lot of people are against until something starts very negatively affecting them. Then they want it removed.
Nope, its like being a fly on the wall of someone's mind on what they think on ideas old or new proven, smart or stupid, real or imagined.
Media in general, though people getting rude as hell, has opened up 3 fold, what the comedians were begino gbto get us to in acceptance and tolerance or color, gender, life style but in real life, not just in amusing folk. From Milton Burle, Flip Wilson to Ru Paul for ideas of trans, cross dress, drag, those militon against with broken minds become bullying terrorists, but the majority open and become accepting of others, those feeling these ways get the noose off their necks for feeling different, etc, sure you get weird archaic thought back like flat earth though both big faith and science faith say different, but point it ability to see everyone's idea, not all on same place in knowledge yet, not all the same in morality or ideologies, everyone different, but all the same as basics with ability to think, have a body, dress, eat, etc..but even like clothes or food its all different
Laws vary world wide on censorship and policies vary however one can still get away with ways to say what people want besides.
Of course, if you don’t like it, you could always demonetize your own channel and remove yourself. Stand against it.
Places like youtube, facebook etc should be determined public forums/utilities. What they’re doing is just as wrong as electric companies turning off your heat in winter because they don’t like your views.
I think so too
That's basically what's happening. Even if they don't censor you clearly, they shadow ban you.
UA-cam stopped being UA-cam a long time ago, Ian Corzine. It's called CensoredTube for a reason.
It might still be good if it weren’t owned by Google or some other big corporation.
LOL
I hope this video won‘t be taken down😉
Probably will -- YT will determine it "objectionable"
I agree with Amazon’s early philosophy. “As opposed to silencing speech, let speech answer speech.”
That doesn’t work out well when all you have are lies. Liars must censor or lose.
There’s a 2000 year old blueprint for *LOCAL* assembly left by the apostles that is the only hope of a censorship free forum and very few seem the wiser. We attempt to address this on our homemade website linked in the About section of our channel.
Totally agree -- fight bad speech with good speech
People should have the right to post what they see fit without interference or any sort of censorship. Its cowardly and unconstitutional. If its "misinformation" then let speech respond to speech.
The First Amendment protects people from the government only, not UA-cam.
yup, and if it is "misinformation" the creator is to be held responsible (not youtube) (and I think that is the case ) so why does yt have to be the moral police?
@@MrSpyrud They are a business, making business decisions. You're free to stop using them if you don't like their decisions. This is how the free market works.
@@weedme5540 leftist spotted
@@MrSpyrud LOL I state facts, you call names. Hilarious.
Yeah UA-cam's terms of service is so vague and they use that at their whim to what they allow but I'm for freedom of speech because more speech is ALWAYS better than less speech CMM
True
censorship is willful ignorance, nothing more....... nothing should ever be censored, no exception. If some one dosnt like what some one says, or writes, they can always choose not to listen to or read it.......especially online....... PROBLEM SOLVED!
This is a tough question to answer. I am definitely on the side of no censorship you should have freedom of speech 100% but on the other hand if I owned a business I would want 100% control over it because my business is like my home, If I didn’t like someone that I invited into my home I have the right to ask them to leave.
That's how I view it with people's individuals' channels. UA-cam is the community we reside in, and our channels are our houses. We should be able to run our houses however we want, and the community itself should simply be a platform that is not liable for its residents' thoughts.
Plus, if we allow extremist ideals to be publicly available to be discovered, we can be better informed and better able to track them. I do not believe that extremism being seen will itself lead to extremism, that people not already inclined towards that will simply inform themselves, and that it is important to be able to see the bad parts of society.
It's always a contentious issue, this.
In any case, I DON'T think that UA-cam CEO Susan Wojcicki deserves her "Free Expression" award. I applaud her efforts to combat hate speech and deliberate malevolent misinformation on the platform, but she has put large media companies' interests before those of independent creators. Just look at how she mishandled Adpocalypse and the COPPA lawsuit. In addition, independent journalism is a good thing, even if it's not necessarily rooted in fact. However, Wojcicki and company have tried to shove news from large corporations in our face. Supposedly it's being done to "combat misinformation" with more "authoritative" news sources...but we all know the _real_ rea$on why.
Also, the organization that gives out that "award" is sponsored by UA-cam itself...which essentially means that Wojcicki and UA-cam "bought" that prize.
"Legality" and "Illegality" is just a Human construct, Ian Corzine. "Laws" and Morality don't mix.
Yep -- thanks for the context, my friend
@@iancorzine You're welcome.
Morality is as much a human construct as laws are. Everything is a human construct, things mankind devised to understand the world. LOL What's wrong with you?
@@weedme5540 Prove it.
@@weedme5540 I don't believe "Laws". I don't believe in "Judges". I don't believe Governments. It's all Make-believe. To keep all of Mankind enslaved.
I don't like it, but it is their platform and they do allow you to post for free. Therefore they have a right to say what can be allowed and disallowed.
We need a decentralize streaming website. It's time we stop using these big corporate platforms & start one for the ppl.
We are all adults ..we should make up our own mind about what is good or bad ..
What SHOULD NOT be allowed is anything meant to harm others, and that includes lies from politicians that incite riots..>JANUARY 6th is a prime example. They should NOT be censoring language, for instance. This USED to be about broadcasting yourself; that WAS their slogan. Now it's more like Broadcast yourself in a saccharin wholesome family-friendly way.
then we won't find out how Frito-Lays is essentially bringing back slavery practices in their workplace, essentially...
January 6 in Washington DC Donald Trump did NOT incite the crowd! I was supposed to be there. I have a friend who lives there so I was invited! If not for COVID I WOULDA been there.. The Stop the Steal people were planning to attend, yes, but ANTIFA and the BlackLivesMatter Marxist goons also planned to be there so they DID show up and it was mostly those thugs causing the trouble.Most of the Trumpers were farther back and could not even get on the Capitol property..The Trump fans were not the problem for the most part. Plus many Capitol police were acting friendly and were actually helping people up and over the barricades. at first the police thought it was just a happy energetic enthusiastic crowd who loved trump and were exercising their patriotic First Amendment right to peaceful protest. and lawful public assembly. If I were there with my laptop filming for my UA-cam channel and a policeman held out his hand to come on up damn right i would have. If i am invited sure I'll go. But them will they call what I was doing "trespassing"? How can it be trespassing if you were let in? Helped up then let in. And so may people all over the country were snitching out anyone who was bragging that they were there.Lots of folks are still in jail over this. It was and is a witch hunt against Trump supporters and that is wrong. Go after the violent ANTIFA thugs Go after BlackLivesMatter!!!!! THEY were the ones tearing down statues and burning buildings in Washington DC!!!! My good friend lives there and volunteers @ the Peace Vigil in Lafayette Park and he saw a lot. Do not blame President Trump just because YOU hate him!!!!!!
I am glad I stayed home to take care of my mother.She is 80 and I did not want to spread COVID to her! Now I;m glad we all got vaccinated. I can't wait to go back to Washington DC... but i wanna wait til this COVID dies down and the Trump haters are gone. I always wear political shirts when I go to DC. I don;t need targets on my back.
They definitely should not sensor unless it’s obvious spam bots
i like how you're covering this now when it was happening for like the last 10 years
Better late than never ...? 😁
Okay 👍🏻 got it
So many gray areas when it comes to net neutrality.
All censorship is bad, because it turns into policing speech no matter what. In America, corporations are essentially people, and they have as many rights as people do. So if you insult or make fun of a person, that's fine, but if that person has a business, or a brand based off themselves, like oh say the Kardashians, then if you insult them, they can sue you for defamation, because if you make fun of them they can make that apply to their business and their sales in some way. Let me know if I'm wrong so I can learn.
Agreed. Thank you
Censorship should be used if necessary!
Like if someone is threatening you or your family's life. That's the only time I believe Censorship is necessary
I hear you -- imminent threat of harm exception is text book Constitutional law
they'll censor just about anyone who's being critical on someone who deserves negative criticism, no matter how monetarily powerful they may be (money can't buy immortality).
You should be able to say anything you want. I agree that racist comments, comments about kids should be taken down and that’s about it. If I want to say 90% of this covid is a scam. I should be able to. If I’m a doctor and I believe makes dont work I should be able to debate that.
We should protest. I think it should be censored to a point. Like racism or homophobic things yes but things like profanity no.
If the censorship is targeting inciting riots or a form of violence, here the crime has already been committed, this can also be used in a court as evidence. The same goes with direct hate or verbal acts of violence. Those two acts would get someone arrested if done on the street. A phone is a private and targeted audience, UA-cam is a public untargeted audience, here a crime is being talked about but may or not have been committed or being committed.
Well, that is a good question and i guess it is hard to determine what is too much or not.
"The Answer is YES" The problem is competition...or the lack thereof. EDIT: If there was actual competition at scale that didn't censor VS current UA-cam censorship we might not have an issue with this platforms lack of freedom of speech. The problem begins with our dependency to networks that we view as not having a viable alternative.
It’s impossible for there to be a video sharing site as big as UA-cam that doesn’t moderate and remove content. Such as site would be regulated out of existence.
Agree with you
Why🙄
Based
I guess it would depend on what is and isn't acceptable. I remember reading something about the Community Guidelines on UA-cam saying we can't talk ill about various groups of people. Around a month ago, I posted a video about how I found out about LBGT representation and how it broadened my horizons. I didn't put anyone down, but I did talk about my opinions on it.
Zero censorship. Only if proof that a law was broken should action be taken.
The UA-cam is hard
LOL
Free fn speech!!
Say it again!
i would say all censorship is bad but then there would be bot's spamming scam videos. so the real question in how to get the best crimefighting effect of censorship but still have as much of expression freedom as possible. also i personaly don't think that hate speech exists becose what somoe considers hate is subjective.
Censorship, when reasonably relevant, is one thing. Such as a segment of Ellen DeGeneres if/when a guest spits f this and b that and what's recorded and uploaded is the same as what goes on TV so it has the beep in place of the language. The beeps are at least because it's a daytime show that kids could be watching or at least hearing.
Otherwise, there are ridiculous laws that literally illegitimately override constitutional law. It makes sense that constitutional law can't be overridden as it's a set of RIGHTS that are a set of laws. Even an employee swearing at a supervisor is subject to termination, direct insubordination. If there are to be ANY exceptions to ANY constitutional law then it needs to be written in somehow.
Freedom of Speech, constitutional law, can't be overridden. Yet such disrespect as attacks, harassment and bullying are illegal. Each of these can be done verbally, which is relevant under Freedom of Speech.
ARGH
The First Amendment protects people from the government only. That's what so many people don't understand. Someone getting fired by their private employer is not a Constitutional violation.
Yeah, but when does law convert a private actor into a public actor? See Amtrak, ATT.
Watch UA-cam Dr John Campbell... has 1 million subscribers.. Reports peer reviewed information.
Would like to say more... but ....
Let's try this a 4th time. Maybe it's reading as spam. I don't know. Anyway... Just as I can kick you out of my house if I don't like what you say in my house, youtube can kick you or your content off of their platform. UA-cam doesn't allow p...graphy on their site and they don't have to. P...hub can take down your content if you're wearing too many clothes in your video if they wanted to. It's their site, they can do whatever they want with it. If they decided tomorrow they're only going to allow vids about farm equipment, they could.
The bottom line is, people clearly don't understand the difference between a private company and the government, and a lawyer (who should know the difference) is emboldening these entitled children. It makes me want to bang my head on a spike.... if I filmed it, however, youtube wouldn't allow it to be posted because they have the right to determine what kind of content they want on their site.
My idea would be if you cannot air it on TV you cannot air it on Social Media
And i thought youtube was a sandbox experience.
LOL
Sand boxes can have other things in it...
I think it should purely be governed by the law of the land! any social media platform should not have the liberty to tailor the content in any circumstance. What is legal (or illegal) otherwise should be legal (or illegal) on YT and this should be territory specific, not that YT can impose US laws to other countries.
But the funny part is that yt can only identify "Hate speech" and "misinformation" which doesn't suit its agenda (I don't know what the agenda is though) but it can conveniently ignore the "Hate speech" and "misinformation" that suits it. And the thing can go on for decades with millions of views without yt being "protective" for its audiences
i want michael jackson play among us
I argue for NO CENSORSHIP!!!
My Screen Name/User Name/Channel Name is actually unable to be spoken aloud by people who want to stay monetized.
SCREW THAT!!!