First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Post Reply How The Leftists Are Conspiring To Silence Conservatives
39161 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 5/9/17
The tool for debating those that leftists disagree with, is the silencing of conservatives. Silencing, whether it be by banning people from forums, for the tiniest infractions just to shut them up, or by slander, or by character assassination, or by twisting the words of those who argue their conservative ideals out of context, or even by derailing their posts, by making off topic posts, in the end are all the tactics of silencing.

And now, Google, who is as leftist as one can be, has created the ultimate silencing tool. Restricted Mode. See this video to understand how restricted mode works, and who is being considered as targets for silencing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bnQrajRfTM#t=591.227729
Banned
Ejanss 
16609 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/26/17

DeadlyOats wrote:

The tool for debating those that leftists disagree with, is the silencing of conservatives. Silencing, whether it be by banning people from forums, for the tiniest infractions just to shut them up, or by slander, or by character assassination, or by twisting the words of those who argue their conservative ideals out of context, or even by derailing their posts, by making off topic posts, in the end are all the tactics of silencing


So, if the Mods ban you, it's a politically motivated "conspiracy", then...Not that we would have any actual experience with it, right?
35639 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 5/9/17
Another day, another thread about you swallowing the latest conspiracy theory you watched on Youtube.

14840 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 5/9/17


This is gold.
3101 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/26/17
LOL, this post it not only hilarious but has ignorance written all over it.
11380 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/26/17


Is it okay with you if I share this around the internet? It's just too precious not to.
22925 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/26/17
Restricted Mode just seems to be able to filter mature content meant for parents to enact on their children or for people who want to avoid certain videos, with the caveat that it can be enabled or disabled.

It is reportedly locking videos concerning LGBT topics, even those with a positive light.

In any case, I do not see the big deal. Can we just not enable it then, or not click videos we think we might want to see instead of relying on a faulty algorithm?


Also, it is a video by Paul Joseph Watson, editor of the Infowars website.
39161 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/26/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Restricted Mode just seems to be able to filter mature content meant for parents to enact on their children or for people who want to avoid certain videos, with the caveat that it can be enabled or disabled.

It is reportedly locking videos concerning LGBT topics, even those with a positive light.

In any case, I do not see the big deal. Can we just not enable it then, or not click videos we think we might want to see instead of relying on a faulty algorithm?


This is not enabled at the user level. This is enabled by Youtube, based on the content contained in the video. Youtube will use software algorithms that can filter out what Youtube considers "extreme" content. Youtube will decide if users have to go through a bunch of other steps to be able to view the content. In effect, Youtube will be causing conservative commentators and their ideas to be very difficult to find and, or view.
4327 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / F
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/26/17

sundin13 wrote:



This is gold.


39161 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/26/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Also, it is a video by Paul Joseph Watson, editor of the Infowars website.


That does not make what he said, any less true. Words do not become truth or lie, based on whether you like or dislike the messenger. You have to evaluate the words that are spoken, not the popularity of the one speaking the words.
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/26/17

DeadlyOats wrote:
This is not enabled at the user level. This is enabled by Youtube, based on the content contained in the video.




Uh... yeah, about that restricted mode. Interestingly enough, it's a mode that is set by the user or network administrator. The original intent for this particular "mode" of YouTube browsing was for public libraries and/or schools whereas there could be controversial videos (YouTube's Help Page about "Restricted Mode"). For these particular locations, all you have to do is log into a machine, set Restricted Mode, lock it, and log out of your account.

Keep in mind that there's been a significant amount of controversy about "restricted mode" because it seemed to also make videos of the following topics disappear too:

  • LGBTQ+
  • Gamergate
  • Certain anime-related videos
  • Certain gaming-related videos (depending on the rating of the game itself)
  • Conservative AND Liberal YouTubers
  • Videos with profanity in their topics


While, yes, the processing of what constitutes as "extreme content" is done by an algorithm that Google/YouTube has created - it doesn't seem to hold any punches depending on political stances (of either side of the American-style equation of politics). Keep in mind that the option of having this turned on or off is something you can opt-in on your account. There are ways of setting this for your browser altogether (regardless who's accessing it). This would be used for network administrators who want to avoid employees or students from browsing similar videos.

TL;DR:
It's an account/browser-based setting, not a global one forced upon you. Thus, not some crazy conspiracy like /r/The_Donald users seem to think it may be or whatever the snowflake from INFOWARS does, either.
22925 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/26/17

DeadlyOats wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Restricted Mode just seems to be able to filter mature content meant for parents to enact on their children or for people who want to avoid certain videos, with the caveat that it can be enabled or disabled.

It is reportedly locking videos concerning LGBT topics, even those with a positive light.

In any case, I do not see the big deal. Can we just not enable it then, or not click videos we think we might want to see instead of relying on a faulty algorithm?


This is not enabled at the user level. This is enabled by Youtube, based on the content contained in the video. Youtube will use software algorithms that can filter out what Youtube considers "extreme" content. Youtube will decide if users have to go through a bunch of other steps to be able to view the content. In effect, Youtube will be causing conservative commentators and their ideas to be very difficult to find and, or view.


I am not having any trouble, and the evidence presented is hardly convincing. I imagine those that do have trouble would be those who are illiterate with how Youtube work, even then, you could just search up how to do it. One way involves scrolling to the bottom of the screen and hitting the restricted mode.



A video swept up is not necessarily taken off, but requires additional permissions to access, which if you are labeled over 18, is not a problem, not at all. This has been in place for years, and the recent hoopla has been mostly censored about LGBT being a taboo topic as well.

In any case, I do not see the problem with this feature. Why not complain about how youtuber Evalion was taken down for her extremely racist views?

Not saying Youtube does not have the right to take down people, but I think if what Youtube did in that instance being beneficial or a trampling on the principle of free speech is a debate that is worth having, more than unsubstantiated conspiracy theories to fuel a persecution complex written by nutjobs.
14840 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/26/17
According to Youtube, only about 1.5% of users access Youtube through restricted mode.
21553 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/26/17
Ah I seen this on the donald as it was happening. It was both gold and horrible at the same time. ATT and Verizon got mad they had advertisements over what they referred to as racist and violent content so they pulled their ad revenue. Well. Google freaked out and made an algorithm to stop ads on inflammatory videos.

Liberals started celebrating and mass reporting conservative videos to deny them ad revenue. They thought they had won then when it got revealed they found out that they were included too. Remember that woman that cried to the UN about sexism in gaming? She was put into the restricted mode and freaked out claiming sexism. Conservatives and liberals both had their content censored then liberals started to complain that google was being many ism's.

Now its a mess on YouTube because google is killing content providers that have anything controversial or just restricting people who pissed off a group of people.


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Restricted Mode just seems to be able to filter mature content meant for parents to enact on their children or for people who want to avoid certain videos, with the caveat that it can be enabled or disabled.

It is reportedly locking videos concerning LGBT topics, even those with a positive light.

In any case, I do not see the big deal. Can we just not enable it then, or not click videos we think we might want to see instead of relying on a faulty algorithm?


Also, it is a video by Paul Joseph Watson, editor of the Infowars website.


Really its YouTube pandering to its advertisers. It threw the family thing on it to try and pretend like it was for the users good. They didn't do it till some big advertisers left.
39161 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/26/17

ninjitsuko wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:
This is not enabled at the user level. This is enabled by Youtube, based on the content contained in the video.




Uh... yeah, about that restricted mode. Interestingly enough, it's a mode that is set by the user or network administrator. The original intent for this particular "mode" of YouTube browsing was for public libraries and/or schools whereas there could be controversial videos (YouTube's Help Page about "Restricted Mode"). For these particular locations, all you have to do is log into a machine, set Restricted Mode, lock it, and log out of your account.

Keep in mind that there's been a significant amount of controversy about "restricted mode" because it seemed to also make videos of the following topics disappear too:

  • LGBTQ+
  • Gamergate
  • Certain anime-related videos
  • Certain gaming-related videos (depending on the rating of the game itself)
  • Conservative AND Liberal YouTubers
  • Videos with profanity in their topics


While, yes, the processing of what constitutes as "extreme content" is done by an algorithm that Google/YouTube has created - it doesn't seem to hold any punches depending on political stances (of either side of the American-style equation of politics). Keep in mind that the option of having this turned on or off is something you can opt-in on your account. There are ways of setting this for your browser altogether (regardless who's accessing it). This would be used for network administrators who want to avoid employees or students from browsing similar videos.

TL;DR:
It's an account/browser-based setting, not a global one forced upon you. Thus, not some crazy conspiracy like /r/The_Donald users seem to think it may be or whatever the snowflake from INFOWARS does, either.


I hope you're right, but we'll see how it works out when Youtube rolls it out, and makes it go live. We'll see what we'll see.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.