When contacted by press, YouTube admirably reversed bans and content removals involving a Canadian broadcaster. But the episode reveals the limits of algorithmic censorship
Censorship, blacklisting and persecution of dissenters is the biggest issue we face right now. It literally strikes at the foundations of our Democracy. It's shocking that the LEFT is willing to turn a blind eye to this out of disdain for Trump Supporters and any journalist capable of nuance. I think this extended to people like Alex Jones, who should not have been deplatformed for political beliefs, despite being fairly annoying.
As someone from the Republican Right, my fear is that the Establishment Democrats and their allies in the media and big tech will misinterpret my side's arguments. You will get pols like Schumer and Pelosi making straw man arguments about what the GOP stands for, then say that any effort to correct these arguments are lies and must be censored.
I think Paul Jay's arguments are nonsense; but he should be allowed to present them. My fear is that Jay will be allowed to present his arguments; but someone who argues that Trump's statements were not incitement to riot will be blocked. The ONLY version of this story that we will be allowed to hear is the one that wants to paint Trump and his allies as dangerous threats that must be silenced.
This will be great for the security state. How best to insure that their budgets are increased and the amount of resources allocated to them are increased: by making Americans feel that they are under threat. What better threat then to have 70 million of us declared a danger to America.
“Jay similarly believed Trump’s speech was perhaps designed to incite a destabilizing moment during which acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller could declare martial law. The fear …..”.
Jay “believed” a speech was “perhaps designed…. ? Perhaps, perhaps not? Perhaps Jay’s a twit, perhaps he isn’t! 50/50.
Are we supposed to take him seriously? If so, to what end? Perhaps we will never know …..; perhaps.
No kudos to YouTube for responding to queries only when they come from a high-profile journalist. That's a sign of their corruption and the corruption of our elected officials for allowing them to become so powerful.
Here is the algorithm. Is the information put out by our friends? Yes...It's OK regardless of content. No....even though it is exactly what our friends claim it must be banned. And by friends we mean people or groups that when we lobby they gives us what we want, or we sure did enjoy the cocktail party the other night. Wasn't it fun disparaging all those deplorables. Fuck Google and YouTube. There are alternatives. Brave and Odysee.
2 --DNC oligarchs (Biden, Pelosi, Schumer) are even WORSE (censorship, they concocted Russia-gate hoax, torture of Julian Assange, Daniel Hale’s persecution for Obama’s drone crimes, $16B Haiti-corruption under Hillary/Obama – Biden-family corruption pales in comparison)
The ONLY solution – vote THIRD party – now and forever. ALWAYS vote – but VOTE for a Third (or fourth, fifth..) party – at ALL levels, especially at LOCAL levels (vote OUT each and every incumbent).
“If you always vote for the lesser of two evils, you will always have evil, and you will always have less.” [Ralph Nader].
Only ACTION: Sustained organized mass civil disobedience - not distractions like DNC-controlled hollering and tweeting....
I wonder about the wisdom of the whole content moderation thing. Terrorist beheadings and kiddie porn, sure. Block 'em. No problem. But I'm not sure Youtube is actually changing minds for the better by silencing political views it disapproves of, especially if they're widely held. Doesn't matter if they're right or wrong, true or not. The very fact of these large, powerful, well resourced institutions presuming to decide on "truth" and what we're allowed to hear, consider, think about or believe just amplifies the rampant distrust and conspiracy mongering. It convinces nobody. It just produces backlash.
Honestly, I know it is popular with the social media set to toss around insurrection, coup, and rebellion. But, nothing of the sort was planned, organized or acted upon. Milley is a delicate flower - and partisan. Those how opposed Trump - and many of the top brass did - came up with all kinds of loose talk claiming a coup was in process. Trump felt the election was stolen; and then felt he could capitalize on this when the facts did not fully back him up.
But in their defense, the Trump campaign filed dozens of cases and not one, not one, was heard on the merits. All were tossed out for standing, lack of claim, and other procedural matters. What is a shame is we know there was some election ‘irregularities’ and we know there is little cooperation to get to the bottom of these. This legitimizes Trump’s claims - as does Facebook when is censors Trump or election discussion.
I have lived through an insurrection. Insurrectionists bring guns, tanks, and rocket launchers. They are organized and generally funded. Our insurrectionists were a bad version of Animal House. Rowdy, loud, and lost.
Milley and the silly social media set need to stop pretending the Republic almost fell and face facts. This was a temper tantrum.
I'd really like to know...that was the first time I've ever watched that clip of Trump and other Republicans....how the hell is that inciting violence? What does "peaceful and patriotic" mean to you? I'd never approve of what happened, but is this inciting violence? Honestly, when you have a sitting Congresswoman telling anybody who will listen to confront conservatives while they're at dinner, how is this WORSE? You may not agree that the election was stolen and I'm sure there's a strong debate to be had, but inciting violence? When? Did he say "Storm the Capitol!!!!!!"..? Did he say "Take back the White House by force with all of your one guns!!!!" Seriously, how could anybody misinterpret "peacefully and patriotically?"
When I noticed this starting to happen more, I was initially hopeful that it would spur people to using decentralized platforms for social media and content. This has only barely happened, though. Right now all I actually expect people to do is to bifurcate into two spheres of centralized social media and content platforms.
Good lord, Paul Jay is such a mini-me fascist. Just parse this statement to see how his mind REALLY works: "I’m not in favor of the algorithms at all. Period. So let’s start with that. The whole idea of censorship through algorithm is BS." Oh, so you're saying if content was monitored and censored by humans (who support MY position) it's okay. Which is why Paul Jay reveals himself to be a closet fascist, because the correct answer is the 'whole idea of censorship is BS.' No sympathy for this dude.
Who the fuck made Google, Youtube, Twitter and FaceBook of all things the arbiter of truth and the ministry of what is and what is not to be discussed regarding elections, candidates, why the weather if foul this week or anything else?
Answer:
They did.
That they even say they "allow" discussions about this or that tells you everything you need to know. They're self-appointed Goebbels.
When you sit and think about the fact that the federal government, (or more specifically,) persons who were either elected or appointed politically are tugging their sleeves and requesting more censorship and nudging discourse in a particular direction, you have what amounts to the government chilling the 1st amendment through private business.
I may remind you all at this time that it's fucking illegal.
I guess we just add it to the pile of other illegal shit they do all day, every day, and the war crimes, pollution, failure to serve their constituencies and refusing to honor their crummy oaths and be done with it.
Paul Jay is not a voice Google et al really want to censor in the first place. His views are milquetoast "left" just the kind of stuff they love. Obviously the algorithm picked it up and was adjusted to accept him. He opposed Force the Vote for example definitely not progressive, if there is such a thing in the US.
The correct answer is to stop using these obviously corrupt social media networks. Sure it'll suck at first, but you will be a much better person for it.
Meet the Censored: Paul Jay
"Our Community Guidelines apply equally to everyone, regardless of whether they’re a small news channel or a larger media outlet."
Can we take a moment to reflect on what a load of insulting, gaslighting feces that statement is?
Censorship, blacklisting and persecution of dissenters is the biggest issue we face right now. It literally strikes at the foundations of our Democracy. It's shocking that the LEFT is willing to turn a blind eye to this out of disdain for Trump Supporters and any journalist capable of nuance. I think this extended to people like Alex Jones, who should not have been deplatformed for political beliefs, despite being fairly annoying.
As someone from the Republican Right, my fear is that the Establishment Democrats and their allies in the media and big tech will misinterpret my side's arguments. You will get pols like Schumer and Pelosi making straw man arguments about what the GOP stands for, then say that any effort to correct these arguments are lies and must be censored.
I think Paul Jay's arguments are nonsense; but he should be allowed to present them. My fear is that Jay will be allowed to present his arguments; but someone who argues that Trump's statements were not incitement to riot will be blocked. The ONLY version of this story that we will be allowed to hear is the one that wants to paint Trump and his allies as dangerous threats that must be silenced.
This will be great for the security state. How best to insure that their budgets are increased and the amount of resources allocated to them are increased: by making Americans feel that they are under threat. What better threat then to have 70 million of us declared a danger to America.
This is pitiful:
“Jay similarly believed Trump’s speech was perhaps designed to incite a destabilizing moment during which acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller could declare martial law. The fear …..”.
Jay “believed” a speech was “perhaps designed…. ? Perhaps, perhaps not? Perhaps Jay’s a twit, perhaps he isn’t! 50/50.
Are we supposed to take him seriously? If so, to what end? Perhaps we will never know …..; perhaps.
No kudos to YouTube for responding to queries only when they come from a high-profile journalist. That's a sign of their corruption and the corruption of our elected officials for allowing them to become so powerful.
Here is the algorithm. Is the information put out by our friends? Yes...It's OK regardless of content. No....even though it is exactly what our friends claim it must be banned. And by friends we mean people or groups that when we lobby they gives us what we want, or we sure did enjoy the cocktail party the other night. Wasn't it fun disparaging all those deplorables. Fuck Google and YouTube. There are alternatives. Brave and Odysee.
1 Trump and GOP are truly HORRIBLE.
2 --DNC oligarchs (Biden, Pelosi, Schumer) are even WORSE (censorship, they concocted Russia-gate hoax, torture of Julian Assange, Daniel Hale’s persecution for Obama’s drone crimes, $16B Haiti-corruption under Hillary/Obama – Biden-family corruption pales in comparison)
The ONLY solution – vote THIRD party – now and forever. ALWAYS vote – but VOTE for a Third (or fourth, fifth..) party – at ALL levels, especially at LOCAL levels (vote OUT each and every incumbent).
“If you always vote for the lesser of two evils, you will always have evil, and you will always have less.” [Ralph Nader].
Only ACTION: Sustained organized mass civil disobedience - not distractions like DNC-controlled hollering and tweeting....
I wonder about the wisdom of the whole content moderation thing. Terrorist beheadings and kiddie porn, sure. Block 'em. No problem. But I'm not sure Youtube is actually changing minds for the better by silencing political views it disapproves of, especially if they're widely held. Doesn't matter if they're right or wrong, true or not. The very fact of these large, powerful, well resourced institutions presuming to decide on "truth" and what we're allowed to hear, consider, think about or believe just amplifies the rampant distrust and conspiracy mongering. It convinces nobody. It just produces backlash.
Honestly, I know it is popular with the social media set to toss around insurrection, coup, and rebellion. But, nothing of the sort was planned, organized or acted upon. Milley is a delicate flower - and partisan. Those how opposed Trump - and many of the top brass did - came up with all kinds of loose talk claiming a coup was in process. Trump felt the election was stolen; and then felt he could capitalize on this when the facts did not fully back him up.
But in their defense, the Trump campaign filed dozens of cases and not one, not one, was heard on the merits. All were tossed out for standing, lack of claim, and other procedural matters. What is a shame is we know there was some election ‘irregularities’ and we know there is little cooperation to get to the bottom of these. This legitimizes Trump’s claims - as does Facebook when is censors Trump or election discussion.
I have lived through an insurrection. Insurrectionists bring guns, tanks, and rocket launchers. They are organized and generally funded. Our insurrectionists were a bad version of Animal House. Rowdy, loud, and lost.
Milley and the silly social media set need to stop pretending the Republic almost fell and face facts. This was a temper tantrum.
The LEFT and corporate media along with big tech are modern-day book burners. It’s sad - how does it get fixed Matt?
I'd really like to know...that was the first time I've ever watched that clip of Trump and other Republicans....how the hell is that inciting violence? What does "peaceful and patriotic" mean to you? I'd never approve of what happened, but is this inciting violence? Honestly, when you have a sitting Congresswoman telling anybody who will listen to confront conservatives while they're at dinner, how is this WORSE? You may not agree that the election was stolen and I'm sure there's a strong debate to be had, but inciting violence? When? Did he say "Storm the Capitol!!!!!!"..? Did he say "Take back the White House by force with all of your one guns!!!!" Seriously, how could anybody misinterpret "peacefully and patriotically?"
When I noticed this starting to happen more, I was initially hopeful that it would spur people to using decentralized platforms for social media and content. This has only barely happened, though. Right now all I actually expect people to do is to bifurcate into two spheres of centralized social media and content platforms.
Good lord, Paul Jay is such a mini-me fascist. Just parse this statement to see how his mind REALLY works: "I’m not in favor of the algorithms at all. Period. So let’s start with that. The whole idea of censorship through algorithm is BS." Oh, so you're saying if content was monitored and censored by humans (who support MY position) it's okay. Which is why Paul Jay reveals himself to be a closet fascist, because the correct answer is the 'whole idea of censorship is BS.' No sympathy for this dude.
Rhetorical question:
Who the fuck made Google, Youtube, Twitter and FaceBook of all things the arbiter of truth and the ministry of what is and what is not to be discussed regarding elections, candidates, why the weather if foul this week or anything else?
Answer:
They did.
That they even say they "allow" discussions about this or that tells you everything you need to know. They're self-appointed Goebbels.
When you sit and think about the fact that the federal government, (or more specifically,) persons who were either elected or appointed politically are tugging their sleeves and requesting more censorship and nudging discourse in a particular direction, you have what amounts to the government chilling the 1st amendment through private business.
I may remind you all at this time that it's fucking illegal.
I guess we just add it to the pile of other illegal shit they do all day, every day, and the war crimes, pollution, failure to serve their constituencies and refusing to honor their crummy oaths and be done with it.
SSDD really.
Paul Jay is not a voice Google et al really want to censor in the first place. His views are milquetoast "left" just the kind of stuff they love. Obviously the algorithm picked it up and was adjusted to accept him. He opposed Force the Vote for example definitely not progressive, if there is such a thing in the US.
The correct answer is to stop using these obviously corrupt social media networks. Sure it'll suck at first, but you will be a much better person for it.