Social Media Censorship Insanity

[justhe_justin]

Can we talk about social media censorship?

I’ve noticed sites like Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook becoming much more strict on media content. Accounts I follow on these platforms are being censored to the point of insanity. A couple of weeks ago, Rollo Tomassi’s live stream podcast was shadow banned twice on youtube before it even started.... LIVE STREAM. It’s not even the content that these tech giants are flagging. Seems to me they are abusing their power and arbitrarily censoring content when they feel like it without giving the creator an explanation as to what rules were violated.

Here are some of the ways Tech companies censor:

• Make account names low on the search engine results
• Make account content low priority in the “feed algorithm”
• Shadow banning content with no explanation
• Banned live stream capabilities
• Suspending accounts (with no explanation)
• Prohibiting creators from using certain words in their content, lest they be banned (i.e. feminism)

Has anyone else noticed this problem? Honestly seems illegal. At the same time, many feminist accounts on these platforms can be extremely radical and do not get censored to the degree MGTOW or Conservative accounts are censored.

 

[Who Dares Win]

Its not random censorship its basically shadow banning, deplatforming and hiding any content which is not leftist or incompatible with leftism, its really that simple.

 

[Serenity]

Private companies can do what they want, it's their platform and they can discriminate as they wish about what content they want to allow. You or me as a user have no right to publish through their platforms, we are just allowed to.

This is not illegal whatsoever, they own the platform, not you. It's of course unpopular for those affected by deletion, but they have every right to administrate the platforms they own as they desire.

If you want more legal protection against censorship you'll need to host your own website/platform, where you have the right to decide the content.

Should it be illegal? I say not because of the implications of it. Say you own a platform, you are legally obligated to allow others to post whatever they want and it's illegal for you to violate their right to have their opinion on YOUR website. That's kinda fvcked up, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Bible_Belt]

It is actually more about the law and civil liability than it is anything illegal. Blame the lawyers if you want to blame anyone. If you run a web site that someone uses to become radicalized, as they say, and that person kills people afterward in an act of terrorism, lawyers for the relatives of the deceased will sue the web site owners. And they will win, money at least.

Now, if you are a company like facebook, the only thing in this universe that you care about at all is corporate profits. That is the only moral. And what happens to those profits if the company has to pay a big settlement? All these companies care about is money. They have no political agenda in either direction.

 

[Blacksheep]

Can we talk about social media censorship?

I’ve noticed sites like Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook becoming much more strict on media content. Accounts I follow on these platforms are being censored to the point of insanity. A couple of weeks ago, Rollo Tomassi’s live stream podcast was shadow banned twice on youtube before it even started.... LIVE STREAM. It’s not even the content that these tech giants are flagging. Seems to me they are abusing their power and arbitrarily censoring content when they feel like it without giving the creator an explanation as to what rules were violated.

Here are some of the ways Tech companies censor:

• Make account names low on the search engine results
• Make account content low priority in the “feed algorithm”
• Shadow banning content with no explanation
• Banned live stream capabilities
• Suspending accounts (with no explanation)
• Prohibiting creators from using certain words in their content, lest they be banned (i.e. feminism)

Has anyone else noticed this problem? Honestly seems illegal. At the same time, many feminist accounts on these platforms can be extremely radical and do not get censored to the degree MGTOW or Conservative accounts are censored.

One thing that I think about it is that the more they try to censor some content the more power they give to it. Just a matter of time.

People are waking up about those things and this is gonna chance I guess.

The fact is that we still think that if we dont do nothing, and do not fight... Things will chance by itself.

It will come a time where people will be in such pain that they will unite and decide to fight against evil.

But for now, Evil are playing the confort game, where it tries to make us so confortable to a pont we become passive and lazy.

 

[Billtx49]

This entire issue is about whether the 1st Constitutional Amendment and section 230 of the Communications Decency Act are in legal conflict with each other…

 

[justhe_justin]

Private companies can do what they want, it's their platform and they can discriminate as they wish about what content they want to allow. You or me as a user have no right to publish through their platforms, we are just allowed to.

This is not illegal whatsoever, they own the platform, not you. It's of course unpopular for those affected by deletion, but they have every right to administrate the platforms they own as they desire.

If you want more legal protection against censorship you'll need to host your own website/platform, where you have the right to decide the content.

Should it be illegal? I say not because of the implications of it. Say you own a platform, you are legally obligated to allow others to post whatever they want and it's illegal for you to violate their right to have their opinion on YOUR website. That's kinda fvcked up, wouldn't you agree?

Instagram is publicly owned via Facebook, Youtube is publicly owned via Google, Twitter is public. For private companies I agree, that's not the case here.

 

[justhe_justin]

It is actually more about the law and civil liability than it is anything illegal. Blame the lawyers if you want to blame anyone. If you run a web site that someone uses to become radicalized, as they say, and that person kills people afterward in an act of terrorism, lawyers for the relatives of the deceased will sue the web site owners. And they will win, money at least.

Now, if you are a company like facebook, the only thing in this universe that you care about at all is corporate profits. That is the only moral. And what happens to those profits if the company has to pay a big settlement? All these companies care about is money. They have no political agenda in either direction.

For instance, Rollo Tomassi's live stream was shadow banned twice in the same week before it even started. Youtube did not have content to base the shadow ban off of. The title and thumbnail were not bad either. Just a guy, planning to discuss a topic live. My IG feed gets flooded with half-naked girls dancing infront of a camera when my friend shares one "Reel" to my inbox. I ended up reporting several of them because the girls were (i kid you not) 11 years old and 14 years hold stripping for grown men on the internet. IG replied and said they found no issue and the content stayed up, these are examples of the type of content I reported and IG did not take down:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CDwmGwxJdrA/?igshid=2esnr11zwef7
https://www.instagram.com/p/CEKDqIbjz4Q/?igshid=zonjcbhwam6p
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CE3IzxUBzO3/?igshid=nydadfc4o8gi
https://www.instagram.com/p/CEy3K6njYfg/?igshid=oj7jm9018fzg
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CDwcB3LBq1y/?igshid=5srapa5uyzhf

GIrls also use these platforms to promote their onlyfans porn and it's completely allowed.

 

[Serenity]

Instagram is publicly owned via Facebook, Youtube is publicly owned via Google, Twitter is public. For private companies I agree, that's not the case here.

This is like saying you should have the power to demand that McDonalds sells the burger you want.

You have no say whatsoever about what content these platforms allows, unless you are a major shareholder. We are users of a service that we don't have a basic right to use. They can dictate what content they want to allow. You don't have a RIGHT to post on Facebook, Youtube, Twitter or even this forum. You are merely allowed to.

They are publicly owned, but that doesn't really matter in this case.

 

[redskinsfan92]

Private companies can do what they want, it's their platform and they can discriminate as they wish about what content they want to allow. You or me as a user have no right to publish through their platforms, we are just allowed to.

This is not illegal whatsoever, they own the platform, not you. It's of course unpopular for those affected by deletion, but they have every right to administrate the platforms they own as they desire.

If you want more legal protection against censorship you'll need to host your own website/platform, where you have the right to decide the content.

Should it be illegal? I say not because of the implications of it. Say you own a platform, you are legally obligated to allow others to post whatever they want and it's illegal for you to violate their right to have their opinion on YOUR website. That's kinda fvcked up, wouldn't you agree?

These "private companies" are monopolies. Monopolies should be ended

 

[Serenity]

These "private companies" are monopolies. Monopolies should be ended

Maybe they should, but it wouldn't change the fact that a company can freely decide what content they allow on their platform. I think it's delusional that people are starting to think they have a right to publish their opinion via a third party.

The problem with ending something like Facebook is that another social media platform will just replace it and grow to the same massive proportion. Everyone wants to use the platform with most other people. It would be annoying to have your friends spread out over a lot of different platforms. Due to the nature of social media it's inevitable that there will be just a handful of huge platforms. People use Facebook because all their friends use Facebook. Starting up a new social media platform in a similar format as Facebook is next to impossible, even Google failed. Why would anyone use it? You don't know anyone else who uses it.

YouTube is a good example. There are numerous other video hosting sites out there, but content creators don't want to move to them because they reach the most users on YouTube. The users in turn don't go to those other sites because their favorite content creators are on YouTube.

 

[redskinsfan92]

Maybe they should, but it wouldn't change the fact that a company can freely decide what content they allow on their platform. I think it's delusional that people are starting to think they have a right to publish their opinion via a third party.

The problem with ending something like Facebook is that another social media platform will just replace it and grow to the same massive proportion. Everyone wants to use the platform with most other people. It would be annoying to have your friends spread out over a lot of different platforms. Due to the nature of social media it's inevitable that there will be just a handful of huge platforms. People use Facebook because all their friends use Facebook. Starting up a new social media platform in a similar format as Facebook is next to impossible, even Google failed. Why would anyone use it? You don't know anyone else who uses it.

YouTube is a good example. There are numerous other video hosting sites out there, but content creators don't want to move to them because they reach the most users on YouTube. The users in turn don't go to those other sites because their favorite content creators are on YouTube.

These are reasons why these companies should not be allowed to determine what content can be on their site. If they control the content, they control the narrative for millions. They control communication.

 

[redskinsfan92]

They've said that about a lot of "monopolies" that have come and gone. Nobody forces anybody to patronize these companies. And eventually they will recede. Plus there are other social media sites and search engines, not sure how any of them are a monopoly on anything. Just government looking for a boogeyman. (Yet I can't deliver mail for less than them...go figure.)

A monopoly by definition forces you to patronize it. If I want the best selection of video content Youtube is my only choice. There is no viable alternative due to anti competition actions Google has taken. Another example would be my electricity company. By state law I am required to have service with them. Sure, you can getva solar roof, but by law my house must connected to their service. I am forced unless I choose to move or go off the grid.

 

[redskinsfan92]

Another great example would be high speed home internet. I literally only have two choices. Comcast and Verizon. What if both decided to block this website and all known VPNs?

 

[justhe_justin]

This is like saying you should have the power to demand that McDonalds sells the burger you want.

You have no say whatsoever about what content these platforms allows, unless you are a major shareholder. We are users of a service that we don't have a basic right to use. They can dictate what content they want to allow. You don't have a RIGHT to post on Facebook, Youtube, Twitter or even this forum. You are merely allowed to.

They are publicly owned, but that doesn't really matter in this case.

Public companies ARE accountable to the public:

 

[justhe_justin]

Another great example would be high speed home internet. I literally only have two choices. Comcast and Verizon. What if both decided to block this website and all known VPNs?

WHat do you make of this?

 

[redskinsfan92]

WHat do you make of this?

I certainly don't want the stammering nerds in the video deciding what information I can share and can't share. Cruz is all bark and no bite though. Dude puts on a show for his Texas constituents.

 

[Lookatu]

Anytime there is public perception, a public held company, sponsorship, dollars at stake, government involvement, there is ALWAYS going to be some sort of media control and censorship.

I just wish some day that a techie would make an equivalent google search, youtube, etc. type sites on sovereign soil using his own money or from various donations that would allow ultimate freedom with no take downs or censorship whatsoever.

I feel the USA especially, have become too sensitized and choices made automatically from them by hiding things that should be left up to the people to see if they wanted to.

 

[Serenity]

These are reasons why these companies should not be allowed to determine what content can be on their site. If they control the content, they control the narrative for millions. They control communication.

Yup, just like newspapers have done for as long as they have been printed. These platforms would all turn into 4chan if it became a free for all i.e. not at all for everyone, and even 4chan is moderated to some degree (mainly removal of illegal content like CP).

You are free to start up your own anarchy platform that allows anything that isn't directly illegal. It would be absolute chaos (looking at you 4chan) and most people wouldn't want to be involved in such harsh discourse.

I do wish many of these platforms would allow more content than they do today, but I strongly disagree with you that platform owners shouldn't be allowed to decide what content they want published on it. The implications of that would be severe and hurt both the companies and the users.

 

[Kotaix]

This goes a bit further than just censorship. The leftist zeitgesit allows no discussion, because in the end they aren't able to defend their ideas by using words. They just create some fake outrage and point at it and screech like good little robots, and shut down the comments section.

Thus you see ghostbusters 2016 flopping and leftists convincing themselves that it's due to misogyny instead of just making a crappy movie, then they do it with star wars and everything else.

Social media and the mainstream media are blatantly corrupt, and everyone is waking up to it. Let them continue to censor people, it will be their downfall if we continue to hold them to the fire for doing it.