YouTube’s new policies designed to more aggressively tackle supremacist content have also led to some creators...

>YouTube’s new policies designed to more aggressively tackle supremacist content have also led to some creators claiming their videos have been improperly removed or hidden in the process. They argue that YouTube is not distinguishing between actual hate content and videos that document hate groups for educational or journalistic purposes.

Attached: 1.png (555x544, 397K)

Private company

> hate

Like the bakers who can refuse to bake cake for any customer?

That's nice but they've been enjoying special benefits on account of them being a platform, not a publisher. This move, however, makes them a publisher and going forward they're liable for every piece of content hosted on jewtube

yeah.

Sure.

>algorithms aren't perfect
Shocking.

I honestly don't get the entitlement of the people who think yt HAS to pay them either way. They offer a free fucking platform to upload your shit, as much shit as you want, in a pretty good quality too. Depending to get paid for uploading stuff is just cray.

A platform is usually regulated. It's not like anyone bitched about not being able to upload porn.

adpocalypse 3.0

There is a difference between disallowing all porn or illegal content and restricting some political content while allowing the opposing side. That's publisher territory and they're going to get hammered hard by this. They basically killed their own platform with this move

>who can refuse to bake cake for any customer?
they can always refuse to bake a cake for any customer or increase the price so that the customr fucks off but they explicitly protested against making cakes for customers of a certain sexual orientation which ran foul of discrimination laws

Nope. They refused to make custom content to the fags. They did offer to sell them any cake in the store. Also, no one should enjoy special legal protection, especially not because of what they put their dick in

Illegal content, sure. Although then they move is even more important then to comply with international markets since freeze peach rules tend to be stricter outside of Burgerstan.

What difference is there between legal content? By going against porn, they show the fingers to all people on the opposing side too.

The difference is that blocking all porn is not biased. If they blocked all videos about politics, they'd be ok but that's not what they're doing

who could have possibly predicted censorship would backfire

Fags quite literally ruin everything.
They've completely destroyed the West.

China and Russia laugh at us.

But they already block videos about terrorist recruiting, which is also based on a political stance.

Yep
Using the porn analogy it's like yt allowed gay porn but prohibited straight porn
This is not regulation it's a publisher taking action to choose arbitrary what can and can't enter on it's platform

So?

>They refused to make custom content to the fags.
are there multiple cake fag scandals that I'm missing out on? either way if they offered customisation for other non-fag customers they're still discriminating against a protected group
>Also, no one should enjoy special legal protection
so your problem is with government regulated protected groups and not what google is doing with youtube then

>blocking all porn is not biased
Obviously it is. It's bowing down to some puritan faggots and letting their attitudes decide what others are allowed to watch. Blocking porn is a political decision.

They would be already be regulated as a publisher following your logic since Islamic extremism is a political stance.

>are there multiple cake fag scandals that I'm missing out on?
No, i think we're talking about the same case here. Fag couple looking to be discriminated against goes into bakery and want a custom wedding cake. Baker refuses but says they're welcome to buy any of the standard cakes. They refuse
>so your problem is with government regulated protected groups and not what google is doing with youtube then
No, it's with both. I'm not the user who brought up the bakers by the way. I just corrected what was said

It's not happening arbitrary at all. It's all based on moneys. No one wants their ads displayed next to some neckbeard crying about white genocide.

>dedicated protected groups

Attached: doubt_my_knowledge.jpg (583x583, 40K)

presumably you benefit from your employer not firing you immediate because you're retarded user :^)

Apparently no one cared enough to drag to them court over that nor did any politicians care enough. This is another matter. Also, just because they've been breaking the law doesn't mean it's ok. Not sure what you're trying to say here
Not according to US law

They aren't breaking the law because this would have been an easy lawsuit for anyone to win if that was the case.

>Apparently no one cared enough to drag to them court over that
you'll be hard pressed to find a group that wants to drag google to court over holocaust denial as well

When Alex Jones or Milo did that?
Dozens of channels were purged and a good deal of them weren't even right leaning
you can say 'Muh advertisers' but then again yt would be acting as a publisher

>Not according to US law
Which laws would that be?

>hiring retards in the first place

Attached: nail_to_a_cross.jpg (640x698, 43K)

>Milo
milo advocated for fucking underaged boys user

>a good deal of them weren't even right leaning
Because it's not about right leaning stuff at all but all content that lowers the quality standards of the platform. Usually right wing cancer is just the most obvious offender.

>being this much of a sheep
It's happening because legacy media is over but they're still trying to stay afloat
Yea, they are. Did you expect someone to sue over night and get a verdict the next day? Now add this shit to the anti trust investigation and the discrimination lawsuit that was just allowed to proceed, and they're fucked
You do understand they're demonitizing people who aren't doing any political content at all right?
the Communications Decency Act

>educators, journalists, and activists
and nothing of value was lost

They've been doing this since 2010.

>lowers the quality standards of the platform

Attached: come_on_now.jpg (211x239, 17K)

>You do understand they're demonitizing people who aren't doing any political content at all right?
they've been demonetising people for the most mundane shit for years now, this decision isn't anything new

>being this clueless
It's about the legacy media refusing to accept they're becoming increasingly irrelevant. Look at how few views they have on their channels compared to some dude in a basement

It's a private platform, freedom of speech means the authorities can't bang you up for having a different opinion. It doesn't mean everyone has to fucking love your opinion or even if they actually hate it, they still need to keep it on their private platform anyway because your opinion is so sacred.

Why doesn't Jow Forums understand this? Did they drink the media kool-aid about SJWs actually having that much power in society, and it's not just a ruse by the capitalist media to make people think the left-wing already has too much power?

That's not an argument so ok?

This is great. A dying platform backfiring on the faggots. I hope they lose their income and jobs as well.

Try reading the thread, retard, or go back to twitter. It's about the distinction between a publisher and a platform. Something your double digit IQ obviously can't grasp

Good. Fuck politics, fuck journalists, fuck educators, and fuck activists. How long until based Youtube demonetizes the whole platform so those parasites finally leave and old Youtube can be restored?

>Communications Decency Act
Don't they comply with it by putting the videos behind "are you 18+" checkboxes?

They aren't a publisher. Having regulations on what content you accept on a platform does not make you a publisher.

based

also the disgusting weed and druggie channels, i can literally smell the stench from the thumbnails

> lowers the quality standards of the platform
And how come this isn't a publisher's decision?

The same entitlement to UBI.

>not blocking sports related content because of hate between teams

I see how it is.

Try not being an entitled prat, if you started your own media website would you tolerate it if I was posting my Communist opinions on it?

Define "hate".
I bet it means "criticism of X ideology".

Attached: 1553486953255.jpg (625x778, 53K)

yes it is brainlet
>the only reason people haven't sued is because nobody wants to defend holocaust denial
>>well akshually they're demonetising non-political content
>they've been demonetising people since 2010
if you think people are going to get up in arms about youtube not being a fair platform now because varg is gone you're severely delusional

Based cat user bringing the truths

It's false and misleading conduct according to consumer law. I hope Google has lawyers.

Yeah? Discourse is better than circlejerk, but good to know you'd ban dissent.

>I think minorities should have their freedoms taken away
>Ah. Google took away my freedom to use their platform, that pisses me off!
Fuck these people.

>would you tolerate it if I was posting my Communist opinions on it?
I'd block you and then state that you should use your communist shithole tube called "youtube".

Oh look, ad hominem.

Attached: you_know_what_you_did.png (422x405, 294K)

good. No one should tolerate the intolerant

It's in the interest of any platform too. If they don't provide the best possible experience to their users, why would anyone bother to use it?

At least UBI is about the state. These people expect a company to pay them after using the service of the said company. Even demanding free shit from Amazon after 10 purchases would make more sense.

based straw man retard

Name one youtuber that said that and on which particular video at which minute

I know a few actual "supremacist" channels and not even they risk it enough to say such a thing

who cares?

Fuck off, no way you would. Jow Forums is overwhelmingly unaccepting of any alternative opinions from
>Donald Trump is a pretty kewl guy because he hints he doesn't like migrant either
>Da joos amitright!?
>This person thinks he is so nice, but get got laid. He can't be nice because I'M NICE an I never get laid! fucking sluts whore bags!
>Nigger! Pajeet! Chink! That now makes me superior because I used words!

Fuck you and fuck 99% of Jow Forums.

I unironically have more respect for people whoe make a living picking up scrap metal and aluminum cans than I do for Youtubers/streamers/vloggers or "content creators" or whatever-the-fuck they call themselves.

People who want to say things and not be a gimp to the system.
You are a cuck.

Attached: 1372046452806.jpg (1440x900, 417K)

Well newsflash, YouTube isn't run by retards and they see the nose tapping just as clearly as you do.

You stupid fucking idiot
A lot of the music I listened to wasn't made by anti-semites.
Anything that said "death to Israel"or encouraged war with Israel or maybe even as soft as "Israel just sucks" got deleted regardless if Hamas, Hezbollah, or some other group made it.
Even Syrian Arab Army Anime remix music would get deleted too.
Most if not all of these nasheeds do not say "kill all jews", they say "death to these groups that cause us legitimate harm and have killed our families and friends".
Is it unreasonable to want to sing songs of revenge just as the Americans did so against the Japanese after pearl harbor?
Fuck You Nigga!

>Well newsflash, YouTube isn't run by retards

Attached: 1541330635159.jpg (500x500, 56K)

Get the fuck out then, no one's keeping you here.

You're a dipshit. The case isn't over the bakery turning away fags. It was originally just a complaint filed against the bakery. It's over the owners PUBLICLY posting the names, addresses, and numbers of the fags, and doxxing them. But you failed to even READ THE FUCKING WIKI

This.
Legitimate political discussion will be blocked as "hate" speech.
In fact, anything opposing political correctness will eventually be unpostable on youtube.
Not only does this limit speech, it limits youtube's usefulness as a tool.

Now it is the same as fucking television. A systemised whore with no critical thinking.

>Jow Forumstards reading anything but memes
Come on.

Nah I'm still just as sad as anyone else here. I've not else much in life but getting a kick out of being a problem for people.

You don't get banned for saying things faggot.
Don't even try to say that this place is like youtube after these policy restrictions.

>Entitled children these days actually think that they can run around saying and posting whatever they want on someone else's ISP, and someone else's website.
>when they are told "NO", they react like the children they are and started screeching about 'Free Speech' and 'Censorship', neither of which apply
>

>this isn't censorship google just wants to make sure low quality content doesnt get in the way of the top notch stuff that CNN, Vox, the Verge, etc publish

Attached: 1482691063285.jpg (800x800, 90K)

Can you prove Hamas or Hezbollah made it, and not Dale form middle Wisconsin and his merry band of klansmen made it? I think middle eastern terrorists know better than to post to YouTube.

If you want to say something then say something. Nobody is stopping you.

>make product and allow people to use it a certain way and even begin a business with it
>suddenly alter the product to render it useless to that new business

I smell consumer law issues, don't you?

Anons wish they did get banned for it though. Because they're fucking snowflakes and want an echochamber more than they want to live up to claims about supporting free speech.

Attached: 1560019677304.png (525x574, 16K)

I mean, the guy I responded to noted himself that it doesn't just affect right wing shit. It's not the fault of yt most right wingers can't make content that is at least on par with some kid opening boxes of toys.

But see Someone is stopping people from saying things the way they used to say it.
They misled people who use their product in the first place, by giving the impression that they could always use this product in the way they used it.

they have teams of very expensive lawyers especially since viacom tried to hit them with a $1bn lawsuit back in 2007 and those lawyers are most certainly going over every decision youtube makes

you most certainly get banned for not following the rules which includes talking about politics on Jow Forums, I have no fucking idea why you all think this is some sort of free speech haven

Says the faggot trying to support youtube's censorship faggotry.

Attached: 1521730668453.gif (320x200, 561K)