Like, I know YouTube has always censored comments in general, but it’s getting worse.
I wrote a comment on the clip by MSNBC on youtube titled “Police pepper spray pro-Palestinian protestors in D.C.”
I didn’t call for violence, and my message wasn’t pro-Hamas. I can’t remember the exact text, but it was something akin to:
'I’m sick of this. I’m just so sick of this. People can care about the lives of more than one group of people.
I care about Israeli civilians. I care about Palestinian civilians. I don’t care about Israel attacking Hamas; all I want is for Israel to stop killing innocent civilians. The attacks by Hamas don’t give Israel a carte blanch to murder Palestinian civilians.
(Can’t remember this bit exactly) Joe, I hope your ratings take a dive to get you laughed off the air; you’re acting no different to Hamas Mickey Mouse calling for the death of civilians.’
I don’t support rioting, but I’m sick of these idiots like Joe Scarborough constantly conflating protests of the Israeli government’s actions with bigotry against the Jewish people.
YouTube is letting spam and bland right-wing comments run wild while censoring any comments against violence.
Honestly, I wish a YouTube boycott would work, but it’s too vital in communication, now. You’d need a massive backlash affecting advertisers for it to work and considering it’s an international company affecting the entire world, you’d need social media itself to boycott social media; it’d be impossible to coordinate.
You may not know but YouTube couldn’t be recreated without investment and a burn rate that is reflective of modern server side bandwidth prices given expectations of curation / throughput. Not to mention capture of the industry that would work as a de facto bulwark to barrier to entry.
This means you would have to innovate and / or bring some deep pockets to the table.
If the statement above seems correct here is some reading:
In my opinion, once you get to the level that you’re not just providing the services of a company, but the infrastructure of a state, you have a certain responsibility to follow similar ethics and guidelines.
The state should be independent, politicians might be partisan and have their own preferences, but the state itself should have no bias towards one group or another.
YouTube reached that level over a decade ago, they should be acting in an unbiased manner possible, or the company should sell off its infrastructure to someone or something that can.
The link you posted as an attempt to say section 230 does not allow a platform owner to censor the content on their platform actually says the opposite. Platform owners can censor the content on their site just like the moderators on this site can remove offensive content. Rightfully so.
Pretty much, yeah, that’s my point. It’s not that YouTube shouldn’t be allowed to censor stuff as it likes, but that when it gets to the scale that they’re providing vital communications infrastructure, they shouldn’t be allowed to pick and choose which political positions they censor; and they’ve been doing that big time with a variety of topics, not just Palestine.
As an example: pretty much any video that involves China in a negative sense; or the China-Taiwan conflict gets demonetised and hidden from feeds.
I get censoring stuff if people are calling for violence, posting NSFW content, or performing blatantly illegal acts; but censoring political and historical discussions shouldn’t be allowed by any means because we have no idea what they might decide to censor next.