Youtube's "Limited state" is now live.

[Deus Ex]

You can just tell all of these people have the same personality
They look like that one SCP that takes people over and they're all huddled together with their organs in one mass or some stuff like that

[Ad Bot]

[Tactical Nuke]

anita sarkeesian is probably my height

You can just tell all of these people have the same personality
They look like that one SCP that takes people over and they're all huddled together with their organs in one mass or some stuff like that

link please

[Planr]

bigotry and censorship at its finest

[e-maxx]

I'd bone the one in the orange shirt tbh

[Figure]

i want to loving die

[Malleo100]

anita sarkeesian is probably my height

link please

is this it?

[McZealot]

lol I'm surprised they let it stay up at all. I don't support censorship at all but this is an awkward situation and if I was in charge of their economics department I would probably just take it down. I don't want handicaps associating the YouTube logo or seeing ads run on this video. not that I would support youtube taking that action--but it's certainly understandable.


this guy's accent is hilarious.
so hawhats the difference between black and hawhites. so hawhy would anyone think hawhites are as smart as every other race. not ONE african society had invented the hawheel.

[St. Francis Xavier]

Google is so liberal it's toxic

[SeventhSandwich]

The guy in the video is an outspoken white supremacist, and I'd probably kick him off my platform too if I ran a website like YouTube. You run a fine-line with content-hosting sites where if you let stuff run too wild, you end up like 4chan and LiveLeak and lose out on traffic from normal, ordinary people who haven't been desensitized to the raw evils of humankind.

But I don't think the 1984 comparisons are appropriate here. YouTube is not the government; it's a private organization that is choosing to block these videos on a purely ideological basis (as opposed to immutable characteristics like race, love, etc). Any discussion of 'freedom of speech' is irrelevant because we aren't dealing with a governmental entity. In the same way you are entitled to kick a national socialist out of your house party for being tribal, YouTube is allowed to un-list their videos.

Now, you guys can choose to boycott YouTube to protest this decision, but I don't think you should. Blocking national socialists from posting their videos on popular private content sites is the appropriate way to pressure them to quit their bullstuff. It's not punching them or using the government to restrict their speech - it's using the pure power of societal pressure and market economics to force them to be less awful. This is how the system is supposed to work.

[otto-san]

might be misunderstanding what people are thinking here, it says it was put in this state because of "user reports," not because google hand-picked this video to censor. in that case it seems roughly identical, though maybe just slightly better than outright removing the video like they would have done previously if a video was flooded with flags

regardless, though it doesn't really matter, i can't say i feel any sympathy for this joker lol

[JumboMuffin]

i'm pretty sure mentioning the website anytime somebody says "youtube is trash" is considered forcing somebody to go there.

no? matthew hasn't hacked your pc making it unable to access youtube, and he doesn't have a gun to your head making you visit the site, i dont see how strongly recommending an alternative is forcing someone to do something

[McZealot]

Any discussion of 'freedom of speech' is irrelevant because we aren't dealing with a governmental entity. In the same way you are entitled to kick a national socialist out of your house party for being tribal, YouTube is allowed to un-list their videos.

Now, you guys can choose to boycott YouTube to protest this decision, but I don't think you should. Blocking national socialists from posting their videos on popular private content sites is the appropriate way to pressure them to quit their bullstuff. It's not punching them or using the government to restrict their speech - it's using the pure power of societal pressure and market economics to force them to be less awful. This is how the system is supposed to work.

This shouldn't be the case. Youtube has a monopoly on digital video as a media and nobody else even compares. We don't think of them as a brand--just a thing now. Youtube is thought of in the same way as roads or the Internet. It's just something that exists and that you use.  It supports an entire ecosystem of videomakers who work professionally. When something had that sort of importance, it effectively enters the public domain in terms of speech. We should have laws restricting freedom of speech under companies that hold that level of influence. I also don't think Google should be allowed to get rid of search results about Annoying Orange because they supported Clinton, or allow ComCast to shut down pages related to free internet because they don't agree with that on an economic basis.

[Frequency]

reminder that google's official slogan is "don't be evil"

it used to be. now it's "do the right thing"

and (((they))) (((think))) (((they))) are doing the right (((thing)))

[SeventhSandwich]

This shouldn't be the case. Youtube has a monopoly on digital video as a media and nobody else even compares. We don't think of them as a brand--just a thing now.

YouTube is not actually a monopoly. There are no market barriers preventing someone from making a website that functions exactly like YouTube and provides the same services. In fact, there are many sites that do that.

What you're talking about is the fact that among all video hosts, YouTube has the largest network effect. People use YouTube because other people use YouTube, and the popularity makes for free advertising. It's like if you were a painter and wanted to show your work in the largest, fanciest gallery in New York City. If that gallery bans you for being a bigot, then you absolutely lose out on a large potential audience, but you aren't prevented from sharing your work with others. There are thousands of galleries that will still take you.

I also don't think Google should be allowed to get rid of search results about Annoying Orange because they supported Clinton, or allow ComCast to shut down pages related to free internet because they don't agree with that on an economic basis.

It's not whether they 'should' do that or not. They can't. Like it or not, a stuffload of people supported Annoying Orange during the election, and Google knows that they would see backlash and boycotts on a massive scale if they were deliberately censoring out search results related to Annoying Orange.

[Steve5451²]

You run a fine-line with content-hosting sites where if you let stuff run too wild, you end up like 4chan and LiveLeak and lose out on traffic from normal, ordinary people who haven't been desensitized to the raw evils of humankind.

I agree that it's important to enforce rules against "wild" stuff but I think this is pushing it too far in to the "don't hurt my feelings" zone.