Speaking of conspiracy theories

[Leonhard]

You might have an argument if the censorship went both ways and didn't exclusively target those with a traditionally conservative point of view.

Can you give me a list of conservatives deplatformed, that aren't bastions of crank conspiracy theories or advocating violence, or blatantly racist? I've asked for a list of sensible conservatives for a while now, but you guys keep linking to people like Alex Jones.

It can't have been that great a loss for you guys to lose Alex Jones.

[carpedm9587]

What's interesting is that your jibe missed its mark because of your ignorance of my browsing habits and the fact that I never went through Google as a jumping off point for news. I also aggressively protect my privacy and use various tools to block elements of websites that create user profiles.

All I did was quote your statement back to you, MM, and note that I found it interesting

All I can say for certain is that Google started skewing increasingly to the left while other search engines would present more balanced results. Like I said, when a left-wing rag like Politifact is highlighted with its own special box at the top of search results, you know something funny is going on.

So this leaves me wondering exactly what it is you are doing on Google. There is no such box on the google news feed at my end. Although the top items for some searches are "sponsored" links (Google is, after, largely an advertising firm), the news feed does not have such links. It takes the latest headlines from multiple sources, groups them by topic, and presents the topics in an order I have to assume is based on number of people who have searched for, or clicked on, an article within that particular topic area. It also factors in my interests based on previous searches. Right now, at the top of the page is articles about yesterdays primaries (NBC, CNN, Washington Examiner, Washington Post, and Fox News - which is pretty much representation across the political spectrum). The next is McGahn's pending departure (USA Today, CNN - both left). Then its the bisexual Senate nominee (Fox, Washington Examiner - both right). Then it's the California bail story (Washington Post, Fox News).

Then it gives me articles that are definitely "for me" and marks them as such. These are even more heavily skewed to my "normal" reading patterns.

I truly have no idea what you are talking about...

[carpedm9587]

You might have an argument if the censorship went both ways and didn't exclusively target those with a traditionally conservative point of view.

This caught my eye. So if it "went both ways," what would be being blocked from the left that is not currently being blocked?

[oxmixmudd]

Just because the guy is a conspiracy nut who doesn't believe Sandy Hook happened is not a reason to ban him. We allow nuts on Tweb who spout worse things than that.

I would disagree. And there is a difference between a random individual spouting nonsense on TWEB and a fellow drawing national attention and finding a large audience for such craziness. The impact of Alex Jones on the victims of Sandy hook was not trivial. People reported getting hate mail etc because of his idiocy. I certainly would not allow such nonsense to grow and gain followers through my efforts, if I had the capability of kicking them out the door.

Youtube is allowed to ban anyone they wish however. As are the other sites. But to claim it is not political is to bury your head in the sand.

It the case of Alex Jones and the specific Sandy Hook idiocy it is not political. It is common decency. It's like, if you want to engage in S&M, do it in your own house, not mine thank you very much.

You can find actual holocaust deniers on youtube if you search. Flat earthers, People who think UFOs are controlling world leaders, or that world leaders ARE aliens. Videos of ISIS beheading people. Promoting ISIS. If I can find such videos easily on youtube, the excuse "Who gets banned still is to a large extent who gets caught" is not a very good one. Apparently they aren't looking*.

Flat Earthers, UFO people, they are all harmless enough. Holocaust deniers are as bad or worse than Alex Jones, and if Jones is banned, it is a bit hypocritical not to band them as well. But I WOULD ban them as well. That particular line is just as much hate speech as anything else out there. It is all part and parcel of the whole white supremicist/neo nazi/anti-semitic bag, and again, find you own mechanism for spreading that sort of thought is what I would say if I owned youTube.

BTW, I don't class either the Sandy Hook CT or the holocaust deniers as right or left - its just evil. Doesn't matter what the political persuasion of the source it. But it is very sad that those sorts of thought processes tend to be associated with the same sorts of people that advocate for fiscal responsibility, traditional/consistent with Judeo/Christian morality, and so on. If I was you, (And I do) I'd eschew acceptance of and push for those sorts of things not being legitimately classed or associated with 'conservative' or 'Republican' politics. They belong outside the realm of all legitimate political debate.

Free Speech? Well, yes - the GOVERNMENT can't ban that sort of speech. But a private business owner has every right to if that is part of their moral standard of behavior to use the site.

And that every single social media platform just happened to notice that Infowars was "breaking their rules" at the same time? Really? They even SAID the reason they were banning him was because of his speech and views.

*you and I know that with the state of the art in AI "deep thought" and various other recognition techniques they can easily scan videos for disallowed content. They sure find copyright violations pretty quick.

I'm not so sure about the state of typical AI on that front. But maybe, not my primary area of expertise.

They didn't all discover/decide at once. But once one did, he was exposed and the reasons for banning were exposed, and as a result no legitimate site could continue to claim ignorance of what he was about. I mean, seriously, what they care about is money. They'd rather pretend the don't know/didn't look and keep taking the money however he generates it for them.

The 'moral banning' is public relations.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Can you give me a list of conservatives deplatformed, that aren't bastions of crank conspiracy theories or advocating violence, or blatantly racist? I've asked for a list of sensible conservatives for a while now, but you guys keep linking to people like Alex Jones.

It can't have been that great a loss for you guys to lose Alex Jones.

Let's hope not ...

[Leonhard]

Let's hope not ...

Maybe there were some upstanding conservatives who got illegitimately shut down. That might have happened! I can't claim it hasn't, but so far the examples of people shut down aren't exactly of anything I'd have ever considered anything more than a ridiculous fringe to begin with.

[Mountain Man]

So this leaves me wondering exactly what it is you are doing on Google. There is no such box on the google news feed at my end.

I'm talking about search results, not the Google news feed, which I never used. Like I said in the post you quoted, "I never went through Google as a jumping off point for news."

[carpedm9587]

I'm talking about search results, not the Google news feed, which I never used. Like I said in the post you quoted, "I never went through Google as a jumping off point for news."

If you are using google and do a general search for any given subject (i.e., the "all" tab), it is not uncommon for the top few items to be paid-for ads, as noted. There is no "politico" box on my search results for ANY of the tabs. I still have no clue why your results would be so dramatically different from mine.

[Sparko]

If you are using google and do a general search for any given subject (i.e., the "all" tab), it is not uncommon for the top few items to be paid-for ads, as noted. There is no "politico" box on my search results for ANY of the tabs. I still have no clue why your results would be so dramatically different from mine.

I think he is talking about the "top news" box at the top of search results.

news.jpg

[carpedm9587]

I think he is talking about the "top news" box at the top of search results.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]30447[/ATTACH]

On my feed, the sources in those boxes keep changing, based on where the latest news is coming from (AFAICT).

[Leonhard]

Well we do know that youtube and the other social media outlets just basically banned Infowars - so to claim they have no political agenda is not true. Not that I care for infowars, they are a complete rightwing wacko source, but I think banning them is a purely political move. They tried to couch it as breaking their rules or something, but there are a lot worse stuff still on their respective sites.

I definitely agree with the last part. I'd respect it more if they were more consistent and more transparent about their decisions.

[NorrinRadd]

Maybe there were some upstanding conservatives who got illegitimately shut down. That might have happened! I can't claim it hasn't, but so far the examples of people shut down aren't exactly of anything I'd have ever considered anything more than a ridiculous fringe to begin with.

Well, there's Louder with Crowder and PragerU.

[shunyadragon]

Qanon conspiracy theorist meet tRump in White House.

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/25/politics/donald-trump-qanon-white-house/index.html

(CNN)A right-wing conspiracy theorist and QAnon-believer appeared to visit President Donald Trump in the Oval Office on Thursday, according to a picture posted on his Twitter account.

Michael Lebron, known as Lionel in his online accounts, is a YouTube and social media personality who makes appearances on Russia Today as a political and legal analyst. He is described as "an avowed conspiracy analyst" on his website and cites the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as a "watershed moment" in his life that led to delving into conspiracies.
According to a photo posted on his Twitter account Friday, Lionel met with Trump in the Oval Office. Other photos posted on Lionel's Twitter account show him going through the White House on a tour Thursday.
"There are simply no words to explicate the profound and ineffable honor of meeting @realDonaldTrump in the tabernacle of liberty, the Oval Office. @LynnShawProd and I so appreciate @POTUS' kindness and courtesy. #MAGA," Lionel posted.

© Copyright Original Source

[Sparko]

I definitely agree with the last part. I'd respect it more if they were more consistent and more transparent about their decisions.

yep. I know google has AI that can recognize things in photos and videos. Because when I search my personal pics and videos stored in google, I can search for faces, various animals and objects and it will give me relevant results - the same with google image search. Also youtube generates automatic subtitles on videos that are remarkably accurate. So Youtube could scan videos when they are uploaded to get an overall sense of the topic and what is being shown and talked about and flag the suspicious ones for human review. But they apparently don't.

[Terraceth]

Well we do know that youtube and the other social media outlets just basically banned Infowars - so to claim they have no political agenda is not true. Not that I care for infowars, they are a complete rightwing wacko source, but I think banning them is a purely political move. They tried to couch it as breaking their rules or something, but there are a lot worse stuff still on their respective sites.

I don't know if the banning of Infowars was a political thing so much as an PR/advertising thing. The basic reason for all of the demonetization problems various channels have been having is that advertisers have started pulling the same thing on YouTube they've done for decades on television, which is to say "I'm not going to pay you much money to advertise during anything potentially controversial". Outright banning something as controversial as InfoWars is basically just doing the same thing, getting rid of the super-controversial thing on your site so that advertisers and sponsors are less turned off.