“Youtube Has Censored My Video About Censorship, Yes Seriously”
This Social Media Justice is getting out of hand.
“Youtube Has Censored My Video About Censorship, Yes Seriously. Recently there was a big story released by James O'Keefe and Project Veritas about Pinterest censoring conservatives. The story was covered by many outlets including far left and leftist digital media.
My video was me reading publicly available information from a website and no new information was revealed. Yet for some reason my video was quietly removed without any notice on youtube.
I only found out because someone emailed asking why I was being censored. The official reason? A Privacy complaint. But from who?
Not only did I get a complaint but James O'keefe and Steven Crowder got complaints. In fact the origianl report has been removed and Steven Crowder got a privacy complaint for interviewing O'Keefe about it.
Social media censorship is now coming for journalism not just commentary. Perhaps this is in result to recent reports, like from Vox, that conservatives are winning the internet. Maybe this wave of censorship hitting Youtube is a result of far left social justice activists taking the only action they have left.”
https://youtu.be/N4E5laxlehY
“Youtube Has Censored My Video About Censorship, Yes Seriously. Recently there was a big story released by James O'Keefe and Project Veritas about Pinterest censoring conservatives. The story was covered by many outlets including far left and leftist digital media.
My video was me reading publicly available information from a website and no new information was revealed. Yet for some reason my video was quietly removed without any notice on youtube.
I only found out because someone emailed asking why I was being censored. The official reason? A Privacy complaint. But from who?
Not only did I get a complaint but James O'keefe and Steven Crowder got complaints. In fact the origianl report has been removed and Steven Crowder got a privacy complaint for interviewing O'Keefe about it.
Social media censorship is now coming for journalism not just commentary. Perhaps this is in result to recent reports, like from Vox, that conservatives are winning the internet. Maybe this wave of censorship hitting Youtube is a result of far left social justice activists taking the only action they have left.”
https://youtu.be/N4E5laxlehY
If you are reading this on the Gulch you will know who said that.
Anyone who does not agree, apart from being aggrieved, aggravated, upset, humiliated and suchlike, explain on what philosophical basis it is wrong ....
(Suggestion, avoid the word censorship, the concept of private property may be useful.)
I’ll ask the same type of question I asked before.
Has any private publishing company ever censored anything In any publication they have ever published?
The question should have a simple yes or no answer.
“Private businesses cannot and do not "censor"
We are at an impasse.
It's the correct and clearly stated Objectivist position on the issue.
A week ago when this topic came up (on several different threads) I posted a list of articles Ayn Rand wrote about it https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... They have nothing to say, just as they had nothing to say about the content of your post.
Personally I find much of the behavior of those big corporations real bad, deplorable.
I hoped to provoke some suggestions:
- how to pull them in consistent with Objectivism, or,
- explaining where Objectivism is wrong or inadequate so government powers have to be expanded (and yet controlled?).
Censorship- one of those words that refers to an action but confined in usage to government, there are a few other words of this type. Also, consider that when government does it the effect is complete within the nation, when done by a corporation the effect is limited to the scope of that corp's activities. You may argue that in some cases that such scope is too large.
Back in the day I heard nasty stories about IBM marketing, then the same about Microsoft. Even then they were not monopolies. If they were the marketing dirty tricks would have been pointless.
What will be your last words before your execution, not by a government but by the world's largest private utility?
But at the time Ayn Rand wrote about censorship, freedom of speech and private property the network news was controlled by three corporations with a 'liberal' bias on government-granted monopolies to the 'air waves'. There was no talk radio presenting views against 'liberalism', and the government Fairness Doctrine preventing the use of private property for freedom of speech was in effect. In 1971 Edith Efron wrote her book The News Twisters describing and documenting the problem of 'liberal' control of news reporting.
There are far more options for obtaining and disseminating information today on the internet.
Demagoguery about "the world's largest private utility" "executing" people has no place on this forum.
I guess in your world the book, 1984, was demogoguery, too. Can you not make the mental leap to a future in which government has been replaced by GoogleFacebookTwitterApple?
If you don't think Ayn Rand's philosophy is relevant then what are you doing here? Unprincipled pragmatism is not an answer. Your post is non-responsive.
It is said that wealth devolves into complacency and apathy, which devolves into tyranny. What if the tyranny waiting in the wings is the technology that makes the world go 'round, and the people who control it?
But right now, this will likely be a game of economic ping-pong as they keep censoring like a publisher that can be sued. Companies that do this will start being treated as publishers and will be sued. These companies will complain bitterly and stop censoring, as much. Some of these companies will test the waters to figure out how much they can get away with and get sued some more.
Meanwhile other free market solutions will create new platforms that promote free speech. These platforms for thrive while those that practice censoring as a publisher will be heavy in law suits.
...
Wealth does not "devolve" into anything on its own. What people do with their wealth depends on their ideas. Technology is not "the tyranny", statist ideas cause that. You are advocating what you claim to fear.
Drop it.
+1
Right now they are testing the concept of an uncensored exchange of ideals site.
We are being monitored 24/7 for any activity and thought.
I am not signing up for another one.
Nevertheless, I don't want to provide my email every time I am accessing a site.
It has a way of haunting and you don't even know where it is coming from.
So yes, whether the Federal Corporation of the United States or the Corporation of Google/youtube, they can censor anything they wish.
As the Chad Mitchell Trio said decades ago: "I'm not afraid of atom bombs, said Khrushchev, and they know it. I'm not afraid of anything, except, perhaps, a poet."
Only the government can censor you.
That is just an example of YouTube exercising their individual rights. Including free speech.
To demand YouTube put themselves at risk for your financial gains is a violation of the code of Galt's Gulch.
It is “censorship,” they claim, if a newspaper refuses to employ or publish writers whose ideas are diametrically opposed to its policy.
It is “censorship,” they claim, if businessmen refuse to advertise in a magazine that denounces, insults and smears them . . . .
And then there is Newton N. Minow [then chairman of the Federal Communications Commission] who declares: “There is censorship by ratings, by advertisers, by networks, by affiliates which reject programming offered to their areas.” It is the same Mr. Minow who threatens to revoke the license of any station that does not comply with his views on programming—and who claims that that is not censorship . . . .
[This collectivist notion] means that the ability to provide the material tools for the expression of ideas deprives a man of the right to hold any ideas. It means that a publisher has to publish books he considers worthless, false or evil—that a TV sponsor has to finance commentators who choose to affront his convictions—that the owner of a newspaper must turn his editorial pages over to any young hooligan who clamors for the enslavement of the press. It means that one group of men acquires the “right” to unlimited license—while another group is reduced to helpless irresponsibility."
"Man’s Rights,”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 98
In a way, Rand refutes her own argument via the character of Ellsworth Toohey. What Toohey did to Gail Wynand's newspaper in The Fountainhead was an example of one individual exciting a mob against another individual to abridge speech.
"You had said that you saw no difference between economic and political power, between the power of money and the power of guns—no difference between reward and punishment, no difference between purchase and plunder, no difference between pleasure and fear, no difference between life and death. You are learning the difference now." -Galts speech.