Googles Censorship of Wrong Think

[Pilot1]

We're about the see a lot more of this, I think. Large tech companies control the internet and, as such, control the expression of ideas.

I'd say in less than 5 years every piece of information you see on the net will be filtered by AI bots and carefully tailored to present only progressive ideals. All the stupid Twitbook shitheads with their idiot faces buried in their phones all day will eat this shit up like gospel truth.

Most large corporations, and many smaller ones are notoriously PC, and liberal/progressive. The tech, and media giants are probably the worse, and the both disseminate information to the public, on a huge scale. Being private corporations, they can censor free speech as we have a choice to go elsewhere. Or do we? What happens when there are no alternatives that will bubble up in a search on any search engine? What happens when we only see liberal, progressive PC views?

[Pilot1]

This is a good time for Twitch (owned by Amazon). To start luring content creators away basically due the opposite of what YouTube/Google is doing.

Except Amazon is owned by Jeff Bezos who is extremely far left, and uses his money to promote, and fund far left causes. He also owns the far left Washington Post. He is a committed liberal/progressive just like Zuckerberg, and the rest.

[SteyrAUG]

Do they post everyone's and not yours? False equivalency.

Interesting that the left is all in for net neutrality, except when it comes to content.

My point was I don't own the local paper anymore than I own youtube, it is up to them what their editorial policy should be. This is no different than the MSM being mostly biased to the left. If it was more profitable to pander to the right, that is what you'd be seeing.

[kerplode]

Or do we? What happens when there are no alternatives that will bubble up in a search on any search engine? What happens when we only see liberal, progressive PC views?

This is my concern and exactly what I was trying to get at. At some point, there will be no platform for non-progressive viewpoints.

But hey, no worries...We can just start up our own video hosting platform, search engine, and social media sites. Easy, right...Not naïve or unrealistic at all!

[Honu]

This is my concern and exactly what I was trying to get at. At some point, there will be no platform for non-progressive viewpoints.

But hey, no worries...We can just start up our own video hosting platform, search engine, and social media sites. Easy, right...Not naïve or unrealistic at all!

agree
the problem I do reckon is the left is in such control of the whole infrastructure it will take a complete over throw or topple of things which I cant see happening
since most companies use amazon for storage of the web ? like you said easy right hahahhaha
searh services and google
social aspect of getting info out facebook



also, the left is so much more aggressive and self-righteous and emboldened to act where most of us just want to live our lives

again Nazi take over was by a small amount just like the left is taking over

what will history say ! why did those folk not see it coming and why did they not act !

[SteyrAUG]

This is my concern and exactly what I was trying to get at. At some point, there will be no platform for non-progressive viewpoints.

But hey, no worries...We can just start up our own video hosting platform, search engine, and social media sites. Easy, right...Not naïve or unrealistic at all!

Try this. If I had the kind of money it took to buy youtube or google and I wanted to exclude leftist, socialist, commie content and favor conservative and libertarian views then anyone who doesn't like it can stop using my video hosting website and search engine.

Well it works both ways. Don't like google? I invite you to investigate StartPage. I think you'll truly prefer it. As for video hosting, start a FB page make it "public" and host all your videos there, you don't even have to use your name, you can start a community page like "Conservative Guys" or whatever.

Google and youtube do not run the internet, they are nothing more than popular internet domains just like CNN and MSNBC are popular cable channels. That doesn't mean FOX news suddenly isn't accessible. Just like those cable news channels are free to promote an editorial bias, and those biases certainly influence those in the population who are not critical thinkers, youtube and google are similarly free.

My solution is I don't watch CNN, I generally avoid google (their search options suck anyway) and I don't rely on youtube for income. It sucks if a person has a popular youtube channel that is now being filtered, but really it's no different from a guy with a popular news column that is now ignored because fewer people buy newspapers.

I probably went through a dozen merchant service companies trying to find one that would do firearm transactions and that was a service I was PAYING for. And on top of that they took 3% of everything I did which was a big chunk of what the profit margins in the firearms business permit. But again, private business so it's their way or no way. I can either accept it for find an alternative solution.

[Big A]

Conversely, is your solution to force a company to incur costs to its business and offending some of its users by carrying content that they don't want to carry. If Google said "we are not going to carry videos of redheads, guns, or BBQ" I wouldn't like it, but that is their prerogative. A huge portion of the population who were incensed about the gay wed cake case, and defended the bakers right to not be forced to engage in speech that they disagreed with, are now going to attack Google for -wait for it- not wanting to host and disseminate speech that they don't agree with. All I am asking for is some intellectual and ideological consistency on all sides...

They're not gonna ban it out right. They'll put it in what they're calling limited state. So lets say they decide to go after gun channels. How are new content creators gonna get any views if YouTube won't boost their vids as recommended to an audience that might be interested in it? Sure you can put your video up, but if nobody knows you did it how are people gonna see it? Or maybe some vegan PETA supporter gets put in charge of deciding what content is appropriate for videos, well there goes your BBQ vids you enjoy so much. I've already noticed that some of the channels I subscribe to aren't showing up in my feed when they post new videos. I actually have to go to their channel page to find them. But plenty of crap I'm not even remotely interested in shows up in my feed.

How is it that Diamond & Silk's or PewDiePie's videos are now demonetized but Franchesca Ramsey's videos aren't? And for me it really isn't so much about the money as it is Googles moves to hide content it disagrees with but boost what they want you to see. I find that disturbing and anybody else that believes in free speech should too.

So the government - (the US one? The EU? CHina?) should be able to make a business incur costs to itself, to provide a platform for speech with which it doesn't agree, to an audience it doesn't want? And by doing so damage its own brand with customers that it does want. Really? So much for small government, conservative, pro freedom, pro market ideas. There is nothing that prevents other companies from launching streaming video services that can cater to whatever they want to cater to. It is a free service. It is governed by a terms of use that users agree to (whether they read it or not). Their dungeon, their rules.

Question: How big does a company have to be, in terms of marketshare, market cap, or influence, before it surrenders its own property rights, IP rights, and business interests to some government functionary? Should they have to put up a PETA video for every hunting video that is offered?

Perhaps the time has come to treat the internet as a public utility so the First and Fourteenth Amendments apply fully. The EU already heavily censors the internet and what content it's citizens can view.

Find an alternate video host or start one. I don't bitch about the local paper refusing to run my letters to the editor.

That's like comparing an apple to a perfectly smoked brisket (<-Just for you KTR03 )...

So much wrong in your post.



You have ideals that are no longer valid and are not how business and the economy works. I may not like it, it may not be right, but it is. If you want to run file sharing service open to everyone, but then restrict certain political views, get in line and start dealing with the FEC about campaign and in kind donation issues.




Owned by the guy running the WashPost. I'm not putting my eggs in that basket.



Do they post everyone's and not yours? False equivalency.

Interesting that the left is all in for net neutrality, except when it comes to content.

[Big A]

Try this. If I had the kind of money it took to buy youtube or google and I wanted to exclude leftist, socialist, commie content and favor conservative and libertarian views then anyone who doesn't like it can stop using my video hosting website and search engine.

Well it works both ways. Don't like google? I invite you to investigate StartPage. I think you'll truly prefer it. As for video hosting, start a FB page make it "public" and host all your videos there, you don't even have to use your name, you can start a community page like "Conservative Guys" or whatever.

Google and youtube do not run the internet, they are nothing more than popular internet domains just like CNN and MSNBC are popular cable channels. That doesn't mean FOX news suddenly isn't accessible. Just like those cable news channels are free to promote an editorial bias, and those biases certainly influence those in the population who are not critical thinkers, youtube and google are similarly free.

My solution is I don't watch CNN, I generally avoid google (their search options suck anyway) and I don't rely on youtube for income. It sucks if a person has a popular youtube channel that is now being filtered, but really it's no different from a guy with a popular news column that is now ignored because fewer people buy newspapers.

I probably went through a dozen merchant service companies trying to find one that would do firearm transactions and that was a service I was PAYING for. And on top of that they took 3% of everything I did which was a big chunk of what the profit margins in the firearms business permit. But again, private business so it's their way or no way. I can either accept it for find an alternative solution.

Google owns YouTube and at this time there is no true alternative to YouTube. There are pay video services like Patreon and Minds.com but there is no free video hosting service with the size and reach of YouTube.

[Big A]

Hell, Facebook recently put a temporary ban on Mr. GunsandGear for "selling guns":

[SpecWired]

These are private companies.

Don't like Google's polices? Use Bing

Don't like Youtube? Use Vimeo

If Google had a monopoly this would be more of an issue.

As it is, speak with your dollars and time.