I’ve had a lot of strange experiences, but it’s hard to top the one from Thursday: YouTube banned the show I co-host, Rising, for seven days, claiming that we perpetuated election misinformation, specifically the claim that Trump actually won the election and it was stolen from him. (The segment
Not to question your intentions or to support the integrity of YouTube et al, but I think you are missing the point. You said "In fact, it was Trump’s constant visibility on Twitter that was his downfall." By posting videos of him (with or without disclaimers) you are giving him a secondary platform. You can write about him or play media of others talking about the negative effects he has had as this country's white-supremecist-in-chief but please don't give him the bullhorn. Perhaps that was the point YouTube was trying to make, rather than discriminating against "The Week" to show the FCC they are behaving.
I am exhausted by media companies trying to appease politicians whom refuse to understand the platforms they are insisting should decide what is PC information. It is not in the spirit of free speech if a company is being pressured by 2 branches of government to censure information. How about you find correct regulations that they can work around without silencing opinion and actual news. I don't care if it means here is the opinion on news section and here is the news section as long as it is available. Free speech should only be questioned when it threatens society or individuals (like death threats). Not showing a speech without interruptions. Is it in their guidelines how long a referenced video be shown before you interrupt for commentary? Arbitrary indeed, either way.
There is a two fold effect here. Yes we can keep him off the airwaves, but also information gets out whether it's true or false. It's the Barbara Streisand effect. The more we police the ludicrous idea that Trump had the election stolen from him, the more we keep it off of major platforms, the more the people who believe that the election was stolen, the more people will start to believe it when it is censored. Asking themselves and others the question, "If it's not true then why are they working so hard to censor it huh? Because it IS true and they just don't want us to know!!!", which is a fallacy but one that works well.
Censoring the Hill for objectively doing a story on this where they actually discuss the nuance of the interview isn't making things better for anyone else except for Google and that's the point that a lot of you are missing. At the end of the day Trump is shit, but Google (YouTube) is our master. There is a difference between reporting on Trump's comments, and giving him a bullhorn. If all outlets that don't like trump stop reporting on his comments, then there is no pushback against outlets that support him. If none of us talk about his presence, he will go where his presence is acknowledged and so will his followers. If media outlets pushback on the things he says then there remain alternatives that can present arguments against him and people who might be swayed by his rhetoric have the ability to hear arguments against his ideology (or lack there of).
While I understand the point of the article and agree that a suspension is excessive, It's reassuring that Google is on top of the disinformation concerning the Dotard. As long as it's 'across the board' the policy makes sense. It would have been nice if the 'rules' were more apparent and/or you were notified to make a correction instead of suspended. I suspect it was an automated response. Keep up the great work
I agree with your basic point - NOBODY could possibly have missed Trump convicting himself time and time again out of his own mouth, and the idea that by not parenthesizing a disclaimer every time one writes about it, the writer is fomenting bad info, is ludicrous. But I think you'll find this CYA attitude almost everywhere now, across all platforms. Lawyers are everywhere, to the detriment of a society based on intellectual discussion rather than vulnerability to litigation. I have been castigated by FB on several occasions because I reposted something they had allowed to be posted in the first place, with a comment to a friend, like "This is interesting" or something similar. If they saw fit to allow it to be posted (and stay on FB for 4 or 5 days), why am I the bad guy for reposting it? Please don't let the turkeys get you down, and keep giving us the word - we're listening.
Not to question your intentions or to support the integrity of YouTube et al, but I think you are missing the point. You said "In fact, it was Trump’s constant visibility on Twitter that was his downfall." By posting videos of him (with or without disclaimers) you are giving him a secondary platform. You can write about him or play media of others talking about the negative effects he has had as this country's white-supremecist-in-chief but please don't give him the bullhorn. Perhaps that was the point YouTube was trying to make, rather than discriminating against "The Week" to show the FCC they are behaving.
Now I know why you’ve been sending tweets out at 3:15am…we’re still out here paying attention to great, unbiased reporting.
I am exhausted by media companies trying to appease politicians whom refuse to understand the platforms they are insisting should decide what is PC information. It is not in the spirit of free speech if a company is being pressured by 2 branches of government to censure information. How about you find correct regulations that they can work around without silencing opinion and actual news. I don't care if it means here is the opinion on news section and here is the news section as long as it is available. Free speech should only be questioned when it threatens society or individuals (like death threats). Not showing a speech without interruptions. Is it in their guidelines how long a referenced video be shown before you interrupt for commentary? Arbitrary indeed, either way.
you are wasting your time on that forum.
There is a two fold effect here. Yes we can keep him off the airwaves, but also information gets out whether it's true or false. It's the Barbara Streisand effect. The more we police the ludicrous idea that Trump had the election stolen from him, the more we keep it off of major platforms, the more the people who believe that the election was stolen, the more people will start to believe it when it is censored. Asking themselves and others the question, "If it's not true then why are they working so hard to censor it huh? Because it IS true and they just don't want us to know!!!", which is a fallacy but one that works well.
Censoring the Hill for objectively doing a story on this where they actually discuss the nuance of the interview isn't making things better for anyone else except for Google and that's the point that a lot of you are missing. At the end of the day Trump is shit, but Google (YouTube) is our master. There is a difference between reporting on Trump's comments, and giving him a bullhorn. If all outlets that don't like trump stop reporting on his comments, then there is no pushback against outlets that support him. If none of us talk about his presence, he will go where his presence is acknowledged and so will his followers. If media outlets pushback on the things he says then there remain alternatives that can present arguments against him and people who might be swayed by his rhetoric have the ability to hear arguments against his ideology (or lack there of).
1. Why no mention of a remedy, e.g., uncensored alternatives to YouTube (Rumble, Vimeo, etc.)?
2. How can Rising supporters meaningfully protest, besides turning off YouTube?
Unreal.
While I understand the point of the article and agree that a suspension is excessive, It's reassuring that Google is on top of the disinformation concerning the Dotard. As long as it's 'across the board' the policy makes sense. It would have been nice if the 'rules' were more apparent and/or you were notified to make a correction instead of suspended. I suspect it was an automated response. Keep up the great work
I agree with your basic point - NOBODY could possibly have missed Trump convicting himself time and time again out of his own mouth, and the idea that by not parenthesizing a disclaimer every time one writes about it, the writer is fomenting bad info, is ludicrous. But I think you'll find this CYA attitude almost everywhere now, across all platforms. Lawyers are everywhere, to the detriment of a society based on intellectual discussion rather than vulnerability to litigation. I have been castigated by FB on several occasions because I reposted something they had allowed to be posted in the first place, with a comment to a friend, like "This is interesting" or something similar. If they saw fit to allow it to be posted (and stay on FB for 4 or 5 days), why am I the bad guy for reposting it? Please don't let the turkeys get you down, and keep giving us the word - we're listening.