Opinion Polls: Delphi's Polling Place

Hosted by Showtalk

Opinion polls on all subjects. Opinions? Heck yes, we have opinions - but we're *always* nice about it, even when ours are diametrically opposed to yours. Register your vote today!

  • 4378
    MEMBERS
  • 91197
    MESSAGES
  • 4
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Banning Videos   The Serious You: How Current Events Affect You

Started Oct-13 by WALTER784; 3515 views.
WALTER784

From: WALTER784

Oct-13

Banning Videos

Violated - YouTube bans video
   
Kerby Anderson
 
What is the significance of YouTube deciding to ban all videos that are critical of the current vaccines? Dr. Michael Brown believes this was a bad decision, even though he explains that he is not an anti-vaxxer. He is more concerned with the issue of free speech and the free exchange of important information and ideas.
 
He begins by talking about his positive experience with the COVID videos that his ministry has posted online. YouTube, he says, has been totally fair with his ministry. This is exactly what freedom of speech is all about.
 
On the other hand, YouTube banned any video that claims that commonly used vaccines are ineffective. This was done to cut down on anti-vaccine content. He reminds us that there are videos that freely discuss what foods are or are not healthy, what diets are or are not healthy, what exercise regimes are or are not healthy, and what drugs for different illnesses are or are not healthy. The one limitation is there can be no open discussion about what vaccines are or are not healthy.
 
That is defined as misinformation. But he asks, “should a video with blatant misinformation about the Bible be permitted on YouTube, even if it will lead many people astray spiritually?” His answer is yes.
 
He raises questions about other topics that might be considered misinformation but again argues those videos need not be banned. But if you have a genuine, well-researched concern about vaccines in general or COVID vaccines in particular, your content will be banned.
 
YouTube has made any debate about these vaccines a special case. You can talk about the health benefits or health concerns of just about any food, diet, exercise regime, or pharmaceutical. But you dare not talk about the current vaccines. If you do, you will be banned.
 
 
FWIW

I mean, it's a free speech debate you can have but it's pointless because Youtube is a privately owned platform whose terms of service you agree to, which gives them carte blanche to do whatever they want because it's a private business. 

WALTER784

From: WALTER784

Oct-13

The_Rock (JABRONI256) said...

it's a free speech debate you can have but it's pointless because Youtube is a privately owned platform whose terms of service you agree to

I never signed up with them... never agreed to any contractual obligations... but when somebody posts something... and I want to see what the posted... but Youtube says I cannot see it... that's... even as a private entity... suppression of free speech. And even though it's not constitutionally granted... it shows the audacity and pure evil gaul that they would suppress what ever they want based on their biased beliefs. And that holds true for Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. Regardless of their reasoning for banning certain content and not others just proves their bias against certain groups, individuals, corporations, political beliefs, religious beliefs, you name it... they block what they don't like and/or don't want made known!

And nothing will change that other than abolishing those corporations or removing the powers they have to circumvent the people's desires to post what ever they want.

FWIW

Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Oct-13

The problem is Youtube, Facebook, Google have monopolies that affect every aspect of life. Arguably they are more like public utilities now than private businesses due to their sheer size and necessity.  It’s almost impossible to use the public internet without using YouTube. 

In reply toRe: msg 3
Jeri (azpaints)

From: Jeri (azpaints)

Oct-13

Free speech amendment only applies to government entities.

private companies (YouTube, Walmart, The NYTimes, your employer) can all restrict your freedom of speech.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/page/things-you-need

People tend to forget the Constitution was written to protect citizens from government.

Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Oct-13

Nothing seems to protect people from the government right now.from a dad accosted at a school board meeting and then turned into a villain to people denied the right to speak.

“it shows the audacity and pure evil gaul that they would suppress what ever they want based on their biased beliefs.”

Pure evil? Holy hyperbole. 
 

Private business equals rules to abide by, if you can’t do it then your content is removed, it’s pretty simple, it’s the same reasoning that I as a content creator can’t just use whatever footage and music I’d like in my video and monetize it, that’s copyright infringement, just a different rule but same theme.

Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Oct-13

Then they need competition. If they won’t encourage it themselves, it must be done for them.

Jeri (azpaints)

From: Jeri (azpaints)

Oct-13

There is a ton of competition on the internet.  From reading, Delphi has competitors that are "any subject" and hundreds of specialized subject competitors.  The GSD  forum is an example.

What companies do you think need to be forced to have competitors?  

 

 

Youtube does have competition, albeit inferior competition in Vimeo (targeted at professionals) Dailymotion (targeted to time wasters) and TikTok (ten second internet sitcoms). In the case of Youtube, capitalism has clearly worked, one business model clearly rides above the rest with an enduring quality about it that retains it's market share.

TOP