The banning of politicians from any public platform raises questions about the level of influence these platforms hold and their impact on democracy. I'm not sure where things will land but this is a bold move by YouTube. I'm surprised they picked Ron Paul to test this on.
> To clarify: The Ron Paul Liberty Report YouTube account is still available. The Ron Paul Institute's YouTube account has been terminated. It is a seldom-used account and its termination is perplexing.
These aren't wackos. These are mostly serious scholars, tired of a serious problem with Google. I'm giving this as an example; this has been a problem for a lot of people for a long time.
Comparing messy AI that will demonetize/remove historic retellings of traumatic events, wars, and hate crimes to 'censoring' Ron Paul is ridiculous.
Most of them moved to because of demonetization... Where swearing can demonetize a video as well as mentioning rape or murder in contexts explicitly. Yes that is horrible to punish literal historians talking about these events that really happened that we should be educated on but, how do you separate those from actually hateful content so charmin/coke/corporation still will pay you to run ads?
Letting people think the vaccine is dangerous without scientific proof when they could die without it, isn't government regulation friendly.
edit: to day I learned there's a down vote feature lol. Didn't know acknowledging a private company has interests beyond letting people saying w/e when want when it can negatively impact their bottom line would be so controversial. Also banning him for being conservative is very different from banning spreading vaccine misinformation. Then grouping that with removing historians incomes due to messy AI implementation to save YouTube's ad friendliness to keep their bottom line is just a victim complex.
> I'm surprised they picked Ron Paul to test this on.
It's the perfect way to approach it. If what is being said is verifiably false and causes tremendous harm to people why should politicians get treated differently?
What other policies should they be exempt from because they are trying to build a brand for politics?
It's funny how we all begrudgingly accept them booting people off for copyright infringement, but when it comes to personal free speech that affects you and I, people want to hold the line.
Everyone has been subtly programmed that lines must be crossed to protect the mega-corp, but if joe sixpack harms himself, hey that's the price of freedom.
Well, I think most people accept it because they really don’t have a choice when it comes to copyright, IP holders will bury them in lawsuits and YouTube will lose most of them.
>The banning of politicians from any public platform raises questions about the level of influence these platforms hold and their impact on democracy.
While the debate about the influence of social media platforms may or may not be relevant (I personally think their influence is all too often overblown to push a political agenda,) these are not and have never been public platforms.
I feel like the term "mistake" must mean something different to you than it does to at least me. Like, we know this isn't some kind of "oops": from just the screenshots in the one linked tweet, we know he filed an appeal and of held up in appeal. I would buy "error", but errors are something that people should attempt to minimize and aren't necessarily excusable with a hand-waive.
> So Ron Paul learned that YouTube is not radically libertarian.
Nothing more radically libertarian than exercising your private property rights to control what ideas are spread by use of that property.
The people complaining on the basis that private parties should not have the right to control what ideas are spread using their own property, OTOH, are clearly not radically libertarian.
Good point. Radically libertarian is a nightmare. In general, radically $ideology usually is a nightmare. Some cultures even have a word for moderation, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagom
Readit News
> To clarify: The Ron Paul Liberty Report YouTube account is still available. The Ron Paul Institute's YouTube account has been terminated. It is a seldom-used account and its termination is perplexing.
A lot of content creators -- of documentaries -- created Nebula because they were sick and tired of getting censored.
https://nebula.app/videos?category=history
These aren't wackos. These are mostly serious scholars, tired of a serious problem with Google. I'm giving this as an example; this has been a problem for a lot of people for a long time.
Most of them moved to because of demonetization... Where swearing can demonetize a video as well as mentioning rape or murder in contexts explicitly. Yes that is horrible to punish literal historians talking about these events that really happened that we should be educated on but, how do you separate those from actually hateful content so charmin/coke/corporation still will pay you to run ads?
Letting people think the vaccine is dangerous without scientific proof when they could die without it, isn't government regulation friendly.
edit: to day I learned there's a down vote feature lol. Didn't know acknowledging a private company has interests beyond letting people saying w/e when want when it can negatively impact their bottom line would be so controversial. Also banning him for being conservative is very different from banning spreading vaccine misinformation. Then grouping that with removing historians incomes due to messy AI implementation to save YouTube's ad friendliness to keep their bottom line is just a victim complex.
It's the perfect way to approach it. If what is being said is verifiably false and causes tremendous harm to people why should politicians get treated differently?
What other policies should they be exempt from because they are trying to build a brand for politics?
What was being said that is verifiably false and causes tremendous harm to people?
I don't know, and YouTube won't say. They just say that "something" was wrong, but not what was wrong.
Everyone has been subtly programmed that lines must be crossed to protect the mega-corp, but if joe sixpack harms himself, hey that's the price of freedom.
Dead Comment
While the debate about the influence of social media platforms may or may not be relevant (I personally think their influence is all too often overblown to push a political agenda,) these are not and have never been public platforms.
[1] https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2008/08/union-access-to...
I see appeal was received, funny thing he's saying out of nowhere, similar thing happened on Facebook.
Nothing more radically libertarian than exercising your private property rights to control what ideas are spread by use of that property.
The people complaining on the basis that private parties should not have the right to control what ideas are spread using their own property, OTOH, are clearly not radically libertarian.
What am I missing?
Dead Comment
Dead Comment