Druff: What are you going to do when the PC police come after you?

[Dan Druff]

You mean like YouTube censoring videos from Dennis Prager who is Jewish and wrote a best seller on the religion? He is basically as far from a Nazi as you can get. The censorship is going a lot further than censoring "hate groups."

Google is a "private company" (not really but for argument sake) and should be able to do whatever they want, but they cant claim a "free speech" sort of business and censor.

Also, calling this rag tag bunch of White Nationalists losers Nazis is giving them too much credit and diminishes the true evil of Nazism. This is just a group of white racists losers who decided to take a five hour break from World of Warcraft to attend a rally. Most are just a bunch of nerds that have no friends who found other nerds who have no friends to hang out with. The media is giving them too much credit and makes them appear larger than they are which only emboldens other idiots to join.

Uhhh... those videos weren't "cenrsored"; they were 'restricted' from *children* readily being able to watch them.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ideos-censored

But more than 15 videos are “restricted” on YouTube. . . . This means the clips don’t show up for those who have turned on filtering — say, a parent shielding their children from explicit videos. A YouTube spokesperson told us that the setting is optional and “based on algorithms that look at a number of factors, including community flagging on videos.” . . .

Get a grip and tone down the hyperbolic rhetoric.

That's actually one of many tricks that YouTube uses to censor right-wing content.

Among the tricks:

- Removing videos for flimsy "content violations".

- Making the video rate poorly in searches, even if far more popular than other videos which come up earlier in the search results.

- Restricting videos to "adults" who are logged in and listed as 18+. On the surface, this seems reasonable, but in reality it creates an extra step to view the video -- one which many YouTube viewers don't want to deal with (many people aren't logged into a google account). Again, the standards for restricting such videos vary depending upon the political views expressed.

After the recent James Damore debacle, do you really think it's unlikely that Google has built in biases against conservatives?

They already did it during the election. During the concerns about Hillary's health (when she fainted in the blistering 74 degree heat), searches for "Hillary Clinton health" came up with nothing in the auto-fill. Instead, it kept trying to suggest "Hillary Clinton healthcare".

There were tons of examples like this.

YouTube is no different.

[Mintjewlips]

YouTube could easily go the other way with the content they sensor, let's think about this logically.

The infrastructure has already been built, at this point everyone of those board members could be replaced with right leaning people, those spineless nerds will comply as soon as they take away their perks.

[ErickAA]

If I leave my 6 year old son alone on the iPad it takes him about 10 minutes to find some real horrible shit. I have listened to Prager. He is extremely vanilla and boring. He doesn't even use swear words. He is just conservative and some of his videos are put on "adult content" lists because he is conservative. It is really that simple and if you believe otherwise I don't know what to tell you.

[Dan Druff]

BTW, Steven Crowder revealed on one of his shows about a month ago that he and his assistant Jared were invited by YouTube/Google to attend a meeting where the alleged biases were discussed.

They actually paid for Crowder to fly out there and attend this. At the meeting, Google admitted in a roundabout way that, yes, there were some biases in the system, but that they were inadvertent and due to algorithms (lol). They claimed they would be "fixing" these issues, and that Crowder and other conservatives would notice a change soon.

So, yes, even Google admitted there was a bias, though they claim it was accidental.

To be fair, a Google bias is also alleged by the extreme left. Many anti-corporate leftist types are claiming that Google is censoring them and their sites through poor search results and hidden videos. They don't allege a political bias, but rather that Google hates them, being a large corporation itself.

[ErickAA]

Also, Google owns YouTube FWIW. We are talking about youtube like they are an actual company that makes its own decisions, which I doubt.

[cmoney]

If I leave my 6 year old son alone on the iPad it takes him about 10 minutes to find some real horrible shit. I have listened to Prager. He is extremely vanilla and boring. He doesn't even use swear words. He is just conservative and some of his videos are put on "adult content" lists because he is conservative. It is really that simple and if you believe otherwise I don't know what to tell you.

Exactly

[sonatine]

Regrettably, until the conservative movement disavows itself of the fringe lunatics it folded into its mainstream narrative in a cynical effort to tilt the balance of democracy in its favor, it will only get worse for you.

[MumblesBadly]

Uhhh... those videos weren't "cenrsored"; they were 'restricted' from *children* readily being able to watch them.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ideos-censored

But more than 15 videos are “restricted” on YouTube. . . . This means the clips don’t show up for those who have turned on filtering — say, a parent shielding their children from explicit videos. A YouTube spokesperson told us that the setting is optional and “based on algorithms that look at a number of factors, including community flagging on videos.” . . .

Get a grip and tone down the hyperbolic rhetoric.

That's actually one of many tricks that YouTube uses to censor right-wing content.

Among the tricks:

- Removing videos for flimsy "content violations".

- Making the video rate poorly in searches, even if far more popular than other videos which come up earlier in the search results.

- Restricting videos to "adults" who are logged in and listed as 18+. On the surface, this seems reasonable, but in reality it creates an extra step to view the video -- one which many YouTube viewers don't want to deal with (many people aren't logged into a google account). Again, the standards for restricting such videos vary depending upon the political views expressed.

After the recent James Damore debacle, do you really think it's unlikely that Google has built in biases against conservatives?

They already did it during the election. During the concerns about Hillary's health (when she fainted in the blistering 74 degree heat), searches for "Hillary Clinton health" came up with nothing in the auto-fill. Instead, it kept trying to suggest "Hillary Clinton healthcare".

There were tons of examples like this.

YouTube is no different.

How hard is that??? And why should Google make that 18+ content free for anyone to see if they don't want to sign in using a Google account???

Also, the content was restricted based on flagging by users who watched the videos.

[devidee]

Regrettably, until the conservative movement disavows itself of the fringe lunatics it folded into its mainstream narrative in a cynical effort to tilt the balance of democracy in its favor, it will only get worse for you.

[MumblesBadly]

BTW, Steven Crowder revealed on one of his shows about a month ago that he and his assistant Jared were invited by YouTube/Google to attend a meeting where the alleged biases were discussed.

They actually paid for Crowder to fly out there and attend this. At the meeting, Google admitted in a roundabout way that, yes, there were some biases in the system, but that they were inadvertent and due to algorithms (lol). They claimed they would be "fixing" these issues, and that Crowder and other conservatives would notice a change soon.

So, yes, even Google admitted there was a bias, though they claim it was accidental.

To be fair, a Google bias is also alleged by the extreme left. Many anti-corporate leftist types are claiming that Google is censoring them and their sites through poor search results and hidden videos. They don't allege a political bias, but rather that Google hates them, being a large corporation itself.

What is a certainty is that YouTube's ham-fisted response to advertisers' "freakout" over extreme fringe YouTubers making money with their ads starting earlier this year ("YouTube Adpocalypse") has resulted in an ad revenue collapse of epic proportions for many independent content providers. Here's a progressive commentary show episode from a few weeks ago discussing how its YouTube ad revenue has been severely affected.

[Mintjewlips]

Regrettably, until the conservative movement disavows itself of the fringe lunatics it folded into its mainstream narrative in a cynical effort to tilt the balance of democracy in its favor, it will only get worse for you.

Literally the same could be said about "liberals", admit it, unless you're a communist with a "this time it's going to work" mentality. If so then there is no rational debate to be had with you.

[sonatine]

If you believe scripture as the literal word of god, I'm sure you can find an equivalence there.

But if you're not an anti-science religious wacko, and thats your line, you simply lack the courage and/or integrity to look in a mirror and admit you backed the wrong pony.

[Mintjewlips]

You fucking backed Hillary Clinton




Jfc, you're a lost cause, thank god you have no offspring.

[Mintjewlips]

I was flipping through the channels one day and i stopped because i saw a black guy with a fro shaking his fist. I turned up the volume and tuned in, the guy was trying to make a case for "culture appropriations", specifically the "N" word. He kept stating that that "the N word is our word and only we can use it". I couldn't understand why he would try to appropriate a slur, a slur that i later learned wasn't used to only describe black people. n-words are universal, there's white n-words, jew n-words, irish n-words etc etc, i just don't know why someone would a appropriate a slur, and defend it. Boggling.

If someone calls me a n-word it wouldn't affect me, not because the word is generally used to describe a black person, BUT BECAUSE IM NOT A n-word.

Now if you called me a fail poker player then that would bother me, because i am a fail poker player .

[Mintjewlips]

In before muck ficon logs on his dupe and starts repeatedly calling me a fail poker player.

[cmoney]

If you believe scripture as the literal word of god, I'm sure you can find an equivalence there.

But if you're not an anti-science religious wacko, and thats your line, you simply lack the courage and/or integrity to look in a mirror and admit you backed the wrong pony.

Why is every conservative seen as "backing" Trump? He wasn't even a top 3 or 4th pick among a vast number of conservatives. The only reason Trump won is because Democrats where arrogant enough to think they could put up the worst candidate in Presidential history in Hillary Clinton and still take it down.

[sonatine]

If you believe scripture as the literal word of god, I'm sure you can find an equivalence there.

But if you're not an anti-science religious wacko, and thats your line, you simply lack the courage and/or integrity to look in a mirror and admit you backed the wrong pony.

Why is every conservative seen as "backing" Trump? He wasn't even a top 3 or 4th pick among a vast number of conservatives. The only reason Trump won is because Democrats where arrogant enough to think they could put up the worst candidate in Presidential history in Hillary Clinton and still take it down.

Because the cumulative voices of conservatives taking a stand against Trump in the last 9 months has amounted to a whisper in the wind. It took him standing in front of the press and personally insisting, with his actual mouth, that the perspectives of white trash marching through a southern city with swastika flags was 100% valid before there was any substantial pushback from the right wing conservatives.

And even now, Paul Ryan is standing tall and insisting that no sanctions be allowed.

[v12cl]

Why is every conservative seen as "backing" Trump? He wasn't even a top 3 or 4th pick among a vast number of conservatives. The only reason Trump won is because Democrats where arrogant enough to think they could put up the worst candidate in Presidential history in Hillary Clinton and still take it down.

Because the cumulative voices of conservatives taking a stand against Trump in the last 9 months has amounted to a whisper in the wind. It took him standing in front of the press and personally insisting, with his actual mouth, that the perspectives of white trash marching through a southern city with swastika flags was 100% valid before there was any substantial pushback from the right wing conservatives.

And even now, Paul Ryan is standing tall and insisting that no sanctions be allowed.

Unplug yourself from the MSM, and use the money you save to buy nice designer glasses?

[sonatine]

OSA: not that its valid, rather it's their constitutional right. Jesus, help this man.



Honestly when I saw you struggling to hack it as a cold calling telephone salesman, I assumed you had some sort of learning disability.

Then I heard Drexel saying saying you were almost normal in real life.

So I guess what I dont understand is; do you just pretend you dont pay any attention to what happens in real life as some sort of online gimmick?

[Dan Druff]

Uhhh... those videos weren't "cenrsored"; they were 'restricted' from *children* readily being able to watch them.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ideos-censored



Get a grip and tone down the hyperbolic rhetoric.

That's actually one of many tricks that YouTube uses to censor right-wing content.

Among the tricks:

- Removing videos for flimsy "content violations".

- Making the video rate poorly in searches, even if far more popular than other videos which come up earlier in the search results.

- Restricting videos to "adults" who are logged in and listed as 18+. On the surface, this seems reasonable, but in reality it creates an extra step to view the video -- one which many YouTube viewers don't want to deal with (many people aren't logged into a google account). Again, the standards for restricting such videos vary depending upon the political views expressed.

After the recent James Damore debacle, do you really think it's unlikely that Google has built in biases against conservatives?

They already did it during the election. During the concerns about Hillary's health (when she fainted in the blistering 74 degree heat), searches for "Hillary Clinton health" came up with nothing in the auto-fill. Instead, it kept trying to suggest "Hillary Clinton healthcare".

There were tons of examples like this.

YouTube is no different.

How hard is that??? And why should Google make that 18+ content free for anyone to see if they don't want to sign in using a Google account???

Also, the content was restricted based on flagging by users who watched the videos.

Jeff Bezos once brilliantly pointed out that a shockingly high percentage of users closed the window and left the site for each additional click.

Ease of use and access is of extreme importance when it comes to having a successful website.

This is exactly why people were so frustrated with wsop.com last year when they demanded people connect their social media in order to read WSOP updates. Not only was that intrusive, but it was introducing another step which many people weren't going to bother doing.

I will be honest. If I'm not logged in to Google, and if I run into a video requiring signing in, I just forego watching it, unless I really want to see it.

The "forced login for 18+ content" is one of several dirty tricks used by Google to push the numbers down on conservative-leaning videos.

I also don't believe your explanation that this was automatically triggered by flagging. I believe Google might claim that, but I don't believe it's the reason. And if it is the reason, Google needs to review such flagging and make sure it's accurate.

Categorizing Dennis Prager of all people as "adult" is just LOL.