Youtube - Meddling in 2020 Election

[marshallnoise]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOByUDv1ftQ

Can you explain this?

[roguetoaster]

Corporations have the same sorts of rights as people, and as a person they are attempting to influence events any way they see fit. If you don't like it just tune out, or you know, use your influence to try and make others think your way, just as you are doing by posting on a public forum.

Remember, no one and nothing has any duty to be fair and balanced, you have to be able to draw your own conclusions.

[mrsleeve]

unfortunately you-tube is not a "media" outlet and are just a content hosting site, they are not subjected to the same kind of scrutiny or ethics as the "media" .

Go watch my link to the Attiksson ted talk, about HRC ties to Alphabet and fake news

[roguetoaster]

Even if it were a regulated media organization they still wouldn't be regulated worth a damn, and if you would like regulation to exist, that show you posted above would undoubtedly be regulated out of existence. Also, it's entertaining that you cite someone's ties to fake news after you post a thing that I would pretty much classify as such (I think of "fake news," not that I embrace the term, as non-fact checked, biased, and generally published without attempting to get a response from another POV or the entity the article/piece concerns).

[mrsleeve]

1 did you watch the ted talk I posted a week or so ago???

2 Why would I not discuss something it is well researched and based in fact and logic??? Especially from a well respected and ethical journalists, that has credentials spanning many media outlets.

3 I would really like to see content hosts be just that content hosts, and not use that platform to regulate as they see fit the free exchange of ideas and thought on Al Gores invention. But that not the woke world we live in anymore

Here I will post it again..... The information presented in this link is the furthest thing form not being fact checked or biased presentation of facts, if you want the long version I know where that can be found as well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQcCIzjz9_s&feature=emb_title

[phillipj]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOByUDv1ftQ

Can you explain this?

It's a good point, and a good post. Hey, I sure don't like your weird allegiance to Trump in the other threads, but we are right on here.

How about Facebook? Putting certain things in front of people where they want to, and surpressing others? Google does this! They do it all the time in their search. Amazon does this too. It's all about manipulating ours & others data. It affects what we do, what we buy, what we think. They can sway great numbers of people with what you see. It's like a bad Black Mirror episode -- but it's REAL. And it's to the highest bidder or who's most connected.

[marshallnoise]

It's a good point, and a good post. Hey, I sure don't like your weird allegiance to Trump in the other threads, but we are right on here.

How about Facebook? Putting certain things in front of people where they want to, and surpressing others? Google does this! They do it all the time in their search. Amazon does this too. It's all about manipulating ours & others data. It affects what we do, what we buy, what we think. They can sway great numbers of people with what you see. It's like a bad Black Mirror episode -- but it's REAL. And it's to the highest bidder or who's most connected.

You are absolutely right. The tech giants are fucking with us all. I left Facespace years ago. I bypass Google as much as I can even though I use an Android phone. Apple does this kind of shit too. Being a private company has nothing to do with it unfortunately. Standard Oil created private businesses to support their industry and effectively held all of the extraction and distribution capabilities for oil in the United States. They were broken up because they had a monopoly. Well, Google's market share in everything they do is a monopoly.

It would be another thing entirely if they openly warned people that they were of a certain political bent but they masquerade as if they are a platform when they simply are not.

[roguetoaster]

Should FOX OR NBC programs say that they have a specific bias before the show airs, or do they leave it up the the audience to decide and tune in or out/agree or disagree as it suits them?

Youtube is different to a degree, but the concept is the same, yes, they have a bias, albeit one that's much less overt, but you can always VPN jump or a number of other ways to bypass the recommendation black hole and get almost whatever programming you want. As to channels or content that gets specifically bypassed, tough cookies, it's their platform and they can do as they please.

Basically, I just don't see the dilemma, we can't practically regulate our way out of this one as I think we'd step on free speech or generate another crappy nanny system in the process, so people will just have to think for themselves as much as practically possible when they consume content.

Sleeve, didn't see it was your username when I replied, might have had some sort of four legged fuzzy creature blocking the screen.

[mrsleeve]

Should FOX OR NBC programs say that they have a specific bias before the show airs, or do they leave it up the the audience to decide and tune in or out/agree or disagree as it suits them?

NO free speech is just that, and whom ever you chose watch is up to you

Youtube is different to a degree, but the concept is the same, yes, they have a bias, albeit one that's much less overt, but you can always VPN jump or a number of other ways to bypass the recommendation black hole and get almost whatever programming you want. As to channels or content that gets specifically bypassed, tough cookies, it's their platform and they can do as they please.

While I tend to agree with you in principal, in the real world, it amounts to legalized censorship, much akin to the much detested "free speech zones" that dot/plague our institutions of higher learning in recent years. I dont think there is a way we could regulate this out of existence, and there is not a moral way to go about it doing so. Other than just waiting for the one of the hosting alternatives to take solid root that holds free speech that in higher regards than the current content hosts. This is where the predatory monopoly shit comes in to keep the likes of the current establishment from silencing/acquiring the competition..............

Basically, I just don't see the dilemma, we can't practically regulate our way out of this one as I think we'd step on free speech or generate another crappy nanny system in the process, so people will just have to think for themselves as much as practically possible when they consume content.

100% agree, but thinking for ones self is much akin to common sense or even workplace safety. I think this is another obvious symptom of larger issues in general society. Those things require personal effort to attain, but in recent years we have the magic screens to tell us all how to think, a heavily pushed and now largely standardized education system to teach everyone how to think the same way as the person to our left and to our right, (hence the term "thinking outside the box" is a thing now) and work place safety policy that will keep you safe so long as you never deviate from anything in it. All of these things remove personal responsibility and thinking for ones self from the equation and put that onus onto society at large, rather than ones self.

Sleeve, didn't see it was your username when I replied, might have had some sort of four legged fuzzy creature blocking the screen.

No worries I am not easily recognized since the migration. Seriously though watch that ted talk link I posted its very informative

[marshallnoise]

Should FOX OR NBC programs say that they have a specific bias before the show airs, or do they leave it up the the audience to decide and tune in or out/agree or disagree as it suits them?

Youtube is different to a degree, but the concept is the same, yes, they have a bias, albeit one that's much less overt, but you can always VPN jump or a number of other ways to bypass the recommendation black hole and get almost whatever programming you want. As to channels or content that gets specifically bypassed, tough cookies, it's their platform and they can do as they please.

Basically, I just don't see the dilemma, we can't practically regulate our way out of this one as I think we'd step on free speech or generate another crappy nanny system in the process, so people will just have to think for themselves as much as practically possible when they consume content.

Sleeve, didn't see it was your username when I replied, might have had some sort of four legged fuzzy creature blocking the screen.

I think it would be good for the major networks to have a small disclaimer that when Hannity or Maddow start their shows, that these are pundits with definite opinions and that this is not a journalism show. Is it obvious? Yes, to you me, Sleeve, etc. But we are politically minded people, constantly looking for bias. The dirty deed is when Hannity and Maddow claim to be journalists which is supposed to be objective.

I disagree with how you see Youtube: They are VERY biased and they pretend to be a platform, but they are clearly publishing. And while you are technically correct that anyone can get on a VPN to get unbiased results, the burden of that should not be on the viewer to do that when they think they are going to a platform. That's unnecessarily burdensome. Its the same problem as MSNBC and Fox claiming they are just journalists when they clearly are not. Bias is ok. Claiming you are bias-free when you are not is NOT ok.

I agree that we can't practically regulate our way out of this completely. But the problem with the tech giants is that there is a massive barrier to entry for other companies to try and compete. That's the biggest issue. If a Youtube alternative came around, Google would just crush it or buy it. You can't control selling it, but when all ad-services run through Google, they can bury you without you even knowing it. The solution is more free market ideas, platforms and publishers, but Google will not allow them to succeed.

I think the first thing that we can do is legislate that the tech companies are not just publishers. They clearly are not but they have the protection of the government because they are treated as platforms when they are clearly doing things that publishers do. https://www.minclaw.com/legal-resour...cency-act-cda/

The other alternative is to ditch the algorithms that are clearly being manipulated by humans and just get rid of "feeds", catered content, etc. Make Youtube a giant repository/library. That's a good example: When you go to the library (not that anyone does anymore), you aren't steered to any particular section of the building. You get to look through the catalogs of books, go over to the shelf, read what you want, then put it back. Sure, you like non-fiction history, so you learned that section is somewhere in the library, so you go there. But at least the library isn't hiding fictional history books or certain authors from you and re-arranging the library on your next visit for you specifically.

[decay]

isn't it fucking amazing how alt-righters who claim a libertarian bent completely flip the script, turn around, and argue that the government should intervene when a platform with user-contributed content happens to result in a content pool they don't like?

it's almost as if you consider the government a tool to silence what you don't agree with, or something, marshall.

[phillipj]

^^ +1234 on the crazy hypocrisy of unbridled capitalism/ no regulation only for 'what I agree with, not you'. 'states rights only when it applies to my beliefs, not yours' - etc, etc.

But, to be fair, in this case, the argument is that you tube/facebook/google/everything is skewing the content you see towards the desires of their overlords. Some might believe it skews toward one political bent or the other, but truly it's just to the whims of the highest bidder. And there is a huge problem with that. More people need to unite and speak up on it in whatever way they can.

[decay]

^^ +1234 on the crazy hypocrisy of unbridled capitalism/ no regulation only for 'what I agree with, not you'. 'states rights only when it applies to my beliefs, not yours' - etc, etc.

But, to be fair, in this case, the argument is that you tube/facebook/google/everything is skewing the content you see towards the desires of their overlords. Some might believe it skews toward one political bent or the other, but truly it's just to the whims of the highest bidder. And there is a huge problem with that. More people need to unite and speak up on it in whatever way they can.

the irony here is that i think it's likely that the citizens united ruling would be played if it did go to court.
if corporations are legal entities and their campaign contributions are "free speech", then why does that argument not also apply to content publishers?

[marshallnoise]

isn't it fucking amazing how alt-righters who claim a libertarian bent completely flip the script, turn around, and argue that the government should intervene when a platform with user-contributed content happens to result in a content pool they don't like?

it's almost as if you consider the government a tool to silence what you don't agree with, or something, marshall.

The whole complaint isn't about content that is disagreeable to libertarian types; its about silencing dissent of "unpopular opinion" that the lefties don't like. Not even close to the same thing.

You act like Youtube is just some funky forum hideout with no one at the top making decisions. YouTube claims to be a platform when they are actually publishing and curating content and that's the whole rub. The law makes a distinction between the two and there are legal remedies based on that distinction.

Quit this ginger-based victimhood you keep running on about in that glorified piece of Tijuana you live at. If the law provides remedy, don't be a bitch when people try to find that cure.

[marshallnoise]

^^ +1234 on the crazy hypocrisy of unbridled capitalism/ no regulation only for 'what I agree with, not you'. 'states rights only when it applies to my beliefs, not yours' - etc, etc.

But, to be fair, in this case, the argument is that you tube/facebook/google/everything is skewing the content you see towards the desires of their overlords. Some might believe it skews toward one political bent or the other, but truly it's just to the whims of the highest bidder. And there is a huge problem with that. More people need to unite and speak up on it in whatever way they can.

If the regulation sought is to ensure unbridled capitalism, you know, like for instance, Anti-Trust laws, then yeah, let's use it. Ideas are the genesis of everything that makes capitalism work so good on you for the comparison, though I doubt it was intentional. If anything, unbridled speech should be loosed everywhere. This isn't about one idea vs another, its about freedom of all ideas and let the best ones rise to the top.

Do you really think that capitalism is their motivation to silence one side of the debate ("highest bidder" reference)? Does liberalism really sell that well? I don't think so. The only way it sells well is if it is the only idea out there. The motivation behind this is something else.