This article was originally published by Chris Menahan at Activist Post.
CEO Susan Wojcicki said Tuesday that it’s “more important than ever” for YouTube to remain an “open platform” just one day after going on a massive banning spree targeting right-wingers for so-called “hate speech.”
YouTube CEO @SusanWojcicki says it’s “more important than ever” to let people upload anything they want.
That means the video platform is okay with “content that is outside the mainstream, controversial, or even offensive.” https://t.co/SeWY6finNr
— Vox (@voxdotcom) August 27, 2019
Amazingly, this is not satire.
From Vox, “YouTube’s CEO says it’s ‘more important than ever’ to let people upload anything they want”:
Can the world’s largest video company continue to let its 2 billion users upload anything they want, whenever they want?
Yes, says the woman who runs that company: In a letter addressed to creators on YouTube, CEO Susan Wojcicki says the platform is committed to remaining open because she thinks the upside of that approach very much outweighs the downside.
This isn’t a new idea, and it’s one that Wojcicki, along with people who run other giant tech platforms, say in private all the time. But Wojcicki is saying it again, today, as critics are increasingly questioning if it’s a philosophy that works for tech companies at a global scale. […]
“I believe preserving an open platform is more important than ever,” Wojcicki writes in a quarterly note aimed at YouTube’s most ardent users, who upload videos onto the site for fun and profit. While that note is usually dedicated to celebrating YouTube’s wide swath of creators, this one spends most of its time defending the idea that YouTube will continue to keep its doors open to anyone who wants to post just about anything on the site.
We’re reaching levels of propaganda never before thought possible.
From Activist Post:
YouTube Terminated Our Unblemished Channel Without Warning
EDITOR’S NOTE: It’s absolutely appalling that the vast majority of Americans are fine with censorship and force being used against other human beings as long as their view is the only one that gets attention. YouTube is definitely lying and pushing propaganda. It is not an “open platform” if people can be banned for saying things the establishment doesn’t like.
HATE: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship (Inalienable Rights) dispels misunderstandings plaguing our perennial debates about “hate speech vs. free speech,” showing that the First Amendment approach promotes free speech and democracy, equality, and societal harmony. We hear too many incorrect assertions that “hate speech” — which has no generally accepted definition — is either absolutely unprotected or absolutely protected from censorship. Rather, U.S. law allows the government to punish hateful or discriminatory speech in specific contexts when it directly causes imminent serious harm. Yet, the government may not punish such speech solely because its message is disfavored, disturbing, or vaguely feared to possibly contribute to some future harm. When U.S. officials formerly wielded such broad censorship power, they suppressed dissident speech, including equal rights advocacy.
Citing evidence from many countries, this book shows that “hate speech” laws are at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive. Their inevitably vague terms invest enforcing officials with broad discretion, and predictably, regular targets are minority views and speakers. Therefore, prominent social justice advocates in the U.S. and beyond maintain that the best way to resist hate and promote equality is not censorship, but rather, vigorous “counterspeech” and activism.
YouTube is just putting on an act because off all the flak they and the rest of big tech have been catching for their damn censorship. Think the tiger will change its stripes? Don’t hold your breath on that. Just another dog-and-pony show. “Oh my, the dogs and ponies are so pretty!” [YOU’RE DAMN RIGHT I’M BEING SARCASTIC]
What about cats? Don’t they have good cat videos, too? Are those getting banned?
My, my, my the censorship over there…good thing nothing gets put into moderation hell over here at the administrator’s whim…howz about it?
they block alot of shit. i can say one thing and do another too.
Let’s see now; individual administrators on individually owned and operated sites moderating their message boards as opposed to an allegedly “non-publisher”, “open” media platform deciding what is “allowable”.
Kind of like picking on people who lock their homes but want “open Borders”; home invasion bad, Border invasion good. lol
Both are “illegal entries”, so both should be treated as a crime, right? All or nothing? Or does “scale” not enter into the problem?
Both Googletube and SHTFplan are free to censor whomever they wish. Those who censor their own platform, however, should not complain about others who censor theirs. I have heard some call this hypocrisy.
I like ‘stay on topic’ rules. Those seemed to be good enough when implemented correctly.
I keep on hearing these corporate heads talking about the need to serve the global community. My vote is for a platform that is meant for Americans. The rest of the world, they don’t share similar rights as us and it’s counter productive towards our rights to be constrained by their socio economic systems.
Publicly traded companies are required by law to put the interests of the company, shareholders, and profit first. Trying to counter youtube with legal means is one of those generational efforts. People hoping for a quick solution will eventually realize it’s up to them individually and nobody will save them from themselves. As long as they continue to push content on those platforms, those platforms will remain relevant.
If one wants to become aware of a person’s or an organization’s agenda see what they support or don’t support, both overtly or couched.
There are many methods to give insight to the observer, but I use two simple maxims:
-one is from Voltaire who said “if you want to know who is trying to control you (your beliefs, attitudes, behaviors) look at who you are not allowed to criticize”.
-the other is from Lucius Cassius who often asked ”Cui bono” – who benefits? or “ad cuius bonum” – for whose good?
History has shown over and over those who may seek to have political or corporate control over others, or presume to know better are elitist, narcissistic, or sociopathic. In reality they generally have only contempt for “the masses”. Ultimately, one is seen only as a managed disposable resource. If fact, the classic definition of fascism is a merging of political and corporate power for their mutual interests over the citizens. Both support controlling information (especially opposing views and uncomfortable facts) and propagandizing to further their mutual goals.
Any privately owned site can decide what goes on their site, but what they censor is very telling. As for YT, if you want to see those persons or topics they will no longer feature then go to brighteon.com.
in 1981, Pres. Reagan’s intel. director in stating his policy goals said that they would achieve success when everything the Amer. public believed was false.
And the Ministry of Plenty has just raised the chocolate allowance to 20 grams.
Autolike International, Autoliker, auto like, auto liker, Autoliker, Auto Like, Auto Liker, Working Auto Liker, Photo Liker, autolike, Autolike, ZFN Liker, Status Auto Liker, Increase Likes, autoliker, Status Liker, Photo Auto Liker