Following Glenn Greenwald Is Likely Why I Still Check Twitter At Least 3 Times a week

Dec 2016
5,963
3,039
Canada
Glenn Greenwald asks "why do social media conglomerates like Facebook and Google/Youtube have immunity from libel laws, when they no longer act as unbiased public platforms and are now actively censoring small account holders on behalf of wealthier, offended accounts. And he has to ask the question on Tucker Carlson's show, because the media representing The Resistance, will Not!



 
  • Like
Reactions: Gordy
Jan 2015
3,803
2,468
MD
Sorry but this debate is so stupid...

If you’re upset that your social media account got deleted because of something you said (and this is all across the board), you have a problem and you should get help. Social media isn’t real life.
 
Dec 2016
5,963
3,039
Canada
Sorry but this debate is so stupid...

If you’re upset that your social media account got deleted because of something you said (and this is all across the board), you have a problem and you should get help. Social media isn’t real life.
So I've heard, the latest round of attention on Youtube censorship came in after some conservative 'comedian' with a Youtube channel got shut down and videos erased after a 'journalist' at Vox named Carlos Maza squawked loudly about Crowder being mean to him and targeting him specifically in several shows on his channel. Maza didn't declare that anything was illegal or violated Youtube's nebulous conduct rules, but just didn't like what Crowder was saying. But, since Crowder has a large rightwing following capable of making enough noise to get the overseers at Youtube worried, they restored his channel and stopped demonitizing videos. So, Carlos Maza is back to square one!

But, what if you don't have a large number of followers or important fans who might threaten to pull ad revenue from Google/Youtube? Well, if you're a small fish you might not get back in the main fish tank! If you question CIA/MI-6 narratives on the Douma or other poision gas attacks or the Sergei Skripal "novichok" poisoning case, you get your channel deleted without warning andd a perfunctory, non-specific email with no appeals process. Same goes even if you're a history teacher and in your series on WWII and Nazi Germany, you do a show on the Holocaust! Youtube's censor algorithm apparently lights up if you just place "holocaust" in the title:

Youtube's Latest Purge

In the US, when these fledgling internet social media companies were starting out, and feared the costs and repercussions of civil actions like libel and defamation because of content they hosted, they got special dispensation absolving them of responsibilities for damages caused by their members or content creators. Now, thanks mostly to government demand that they become agents of censorship, they're removing or in Youtube's case - demonetizing (stealing meager ad revenues) videos.

But, as Youtube's spokespersons and Carlos Maza whine about this rap on the knuckles applied to Steven Crowder, they note that Google/Youtube ad revenue cuts to content creators on their sites are so piss-poor, that most video makers set up patreon accounts or sell their own commercial products and merchandise....as Joe Rogan does to earn from his highly viewed free channel....so demonetizing does nothing except take just a little bit more money for GoogleBorg!

So, since these dot com companies presented themselves as public platforms to dodge legal responsibilities of members and content creators, are they still public platforms after they engage in censorship and make the same biased decisions on membership that any conservative or liberal newspaper would about their editorial decisions? How about making social media really "social," and making them free public platforms with boards of directors who have to justify any decisions to censor or not to censor their content?
 
Jan 2015
3,803
2,468
MD
The only solution to all of this is to delete your social media and stop engaging in these stupid conversations.