First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
How The Leftists Are Conspiring To Silence Conservatives
26349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Roasting In Hell
Online
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/27/17

DeadlyOats wrote:


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.


I was attacking his credibility. It is not different than posting a CNN video and people decrying the bias and the validity of the "story". In any case, believing in someone whose message or facts you just happen to like, regardless of what his credential are or who he is, is worst.

In any case, the claims you are making are exaggerated, and not based on the knowledge of how those filters and algorithms actually work, or what settings are already available.
39169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/27/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


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.





I probably used the wrong name of the feature or filter, but this hasn't gone live, yet. This is something that's coming down the line in a few days or a few weeks. It hasn't gone live, yet.
14725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Houma
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/27/17
Solution: Don't enable it. Seriously, it blocks anything controversial... not biased nor is it enabled by default.
23182 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/27/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:



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.


I was attacking his credibility. It is not different than posting a CNN video and people decrying the bias and the validity of the "story". In any case, believing in someone whose message or facts you just happen to like, regardless of what his credential are or who he is, is worst.

In any case, the claims you are making are exaggerated, and not based on the knowledge of how those filters and algorithms actually work, or what settings are already available.


Except he doesnt have a credibility problem. CNN.... I could fill 10 pages of content up that they. Have doctored or fake news.
23182 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/27/17

DeadlyOats wrote:
I probably used the wrong name of the feature or filter, but this hasn't gone live, yet. This is something that's coming down the line in a few days or a few weeks. It hasn't gone live, yet.

Could be. I heard it wasn't entirely in effect yet. Just that people can't search their own channel and they are complaining.
26349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Roasting In Hell
Online
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/27/17

DeadlyOats wrote:
I probably used the wrong name of the feature or filter, but this hasn't gone live, yet. This is something that's coming down the line in a few days or a few weeks. It hasn't gone live, yet.


I have not heard of this, nor can I find anything about any upcoming censorship, even on Wikipedia. If anything, this does appear to be about restricted mode, and it is live, as it always has been for years.

39169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/27/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:


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.


I was attacking his credibility. It is not different than posting a CNN video and people decrying the bias and the validity of the "story". In any case, believing in someone whose message or facts you just happen to like, regardless of what his credential are or who he is, is worst.

In any case, the claims you are making are exaggerated, and not based on the knowledge of how those filters and algorithms actually work, or what settings are already available.


He makes opinion videos. He talks about issues, and expresses his opinions on those matters. Opinions are fine. You aren't reporting it as news. However, you can make people aware of issues while expressing an opinion.

When news is "reported" as fact, but bias is inserted into the reporting, and bias twists the slant of the reporting, and it is called "fact," then there is a problem. CNN, Fox, N.Y. Times, Washington Post, whether left-leaning or right-centric, if a story is reported as "fact," and bias is inserted into the reporting, twisting the final outcome, then there is a problem.

There is no need to insult or denigrate. Also, the feature has not gone live, yet. It is coming soon, however. We'll just have to see how it pans out.
26349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Roasting In Hell
Online
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/27/17

Rujikin wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:



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.


I was attacking his credibility. It is not different than posting a CNN video and people decrying the bias and the validity of the "story". In any case, believing in someone whose message or facts you just happen to like, regardless of what his credential are or who he is, is worst.

In any case, the claims you are making are exaggerated, and not based on the knowledge of how those filters and algorithms actually work, or what settings are already available.


Except he doesnt have a credibility problem. CNN.... I could fill 10 pages of content up that they. Have doctored or fake news.


And Infowars is better? I am not advocating CNN by the way, I have seen the evidence of their lies. I think Infowars is a bit more blatant in their bias, and it shows of what they push as "truth"
669 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/27/17
I don't know why everyone's laughing at this! I mean Obama is bugging Microwaves! Why is this so hard to believe!?
12131 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/27/17

DeadlyOats wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:


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.


I was attacking his credibility. It is not different than posting a CNN video and people decrying the bias and the validity of the "story". In any case, believing in someone whose message or facts you just happen to like, regardless of what his credential are or who he is, is worst.

In any case, the claims you are making are exaggerated, and not based on the knowledge of how those filters and algorithms actually work, or what settings are already available.


He makes opinion videos. He talks about issues, and expresses his opinions on those matters. Opinions are fine. You aren't reporting it as news. However, you can make people aware of issues while expressing an opinion.

When news is "reported" as fact, but bias is inserted into the reporting, and bias twists the slant of the reporting, and it is called "fact," then there is a problem. CNN, Fox, N.Y. Times, Washington Post, whether left-leaning or right-centric, if a story is reported as "fact," and bias is inserted into the reporting, twisting the final outcome, then there is a problem.

There is no need to insult or denigrate. Also, the feature has not gone live, yet. It is coming soon, however. We'll just have to see how it pans out.


Still haven't answered my question lad, is it okay with you if I share your self embarrassment around or not?
23182 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/27/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:
I have not heard of this, nor can I find anything about any upcoming censorship, even on Wikipedia. If anything, this does appear to be about restricted mode, and it is live, as it always has been for years.


There's a new feature designed to stop ad revenue to controversial videos as well as hide controversial channels. It came about from advertisers pulling out of YouTube. I heard about it early this week or late last week. Doubt its finished yet.
26349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Roasting In Hell
Online
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/27/17

DeadlyOats wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:


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.


I was attacking his credibility. It is not different than posting a CNN video and people decrying the bias and the validity of the "story". In any case, believing in someone whose message or facts you just happen to like, regardless of what his credential are or who he is, is worst.

In any case, the claims you are making are exaggerated, and not based on the knowledge of how those filters and algorithms actually work, or what settings are already available.


He makes opinion videos. He talks about issues, and expresses his opinions on those matters. Opinions are fine. You aren't reporting it as news. However, you can make people aware of issues while expressing an opinion.

When news is "reported" as fact, but bias is inserted into the reporting, and bias twists the slant of the reporting, and it is called "fact," then there is a problem. CNN, Fox, N.Y. Times, Washington Post, whether left-leaning or right-centric, if a story is reported as "fact," and bias is inserted into the reporting, twisting the final outcome, then there is a problem.

There is no need to insult or denigrate. Also, the feature has not gone live, yet. It is coming soon, however. We'll just have to see how it pans out.


His facts, and yours, are not at all accurate. Sharing an opinion is fine, but inaccuracy of factual assertion, especially what you said regarding restricted mode being enabled on every Youtube account, is something I can more than criticize. That is not what restricted mode is, and it is hardly an issue due to how few use it and how many can easily enable or disable it. This, with your heap that the most forum sites are against you as well as users themselves, really stretch my belief that there is some online conspiracy to silence conservatives. Leaving out various other videos that are restricted, such as LGBT videos, among other things. Opinions are rarely said without facts, after all. His opinion being a logical one hinges on the truth. It dis not truthful, and subsequently not a logical one to hold.

Infowars does present itself as a factual website as well as an editorial piece, with a clear bias of the conspiracy theorist with right wing beliefs. Their facts hardly deviate from this, and are written in a way to provoke a response from those ready to believe.

I do not think I have insulted you, assuming the green meant this quote in response.


In any case, the claims you are making are exaggerated, and not based on the knowledge of how those filters and algorithms actually work, or what settings are already available.


I am sorry if I offended you, I will try to cool it down next time.
12052 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/27/17
Your Youtube clip didn't clear up anything
Revolver Dogelot
73189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / somewhere that is...
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/27/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:
In any case, the claims you are making are exaggerated, and not based on the knowledge of how those filters and algorithms actually work, or what settings are already available.

I don't know, I have had those world class Youtube algorithms rip audio out of my videos because they claimed I was playing jazz music in the background. Yet the videos in question literally had no music track to begin with.

So I can sort of understand someone being skeptical here.

In other news, keep insults and flamebait out of the posts everyone.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.