YouTube Banned Me For “Hate Speech”

[DoD1776]

So my YouTube gets banned for a historical video for class. The video was about a year old if that, and they updated their new “terms of service” and long story short I was banned for “Hate Speech” even though it was an edit about the Americans v. Nazi’s.

I’ve had YouTube for over 10 years and never was in trouble. Lost all of my videos from the older years, lost my videos that were on a road to going viral. Lost my playlists of videos I saved from over the years and It’s complete BS and they’re going on a ban spree and deleting historical videos and erasing history. This new ToS is censoring conservatives, also they’re attacking Louder With Crowder (not a fan of him but still, they’re going after him). “Never forget” Is what they idiotic left preaches but they’re the ones who delete history and rip down monuments. Fuck em’

 

[fresch]

What's a ewu tube?

 

[kev74]

What was the topic?

 

[Carlos Hathcock]

I'm waiting for a conservative with some financial backing to create another version of that site so all the libtard, safe space pussies can keep their videos of horrible illegal immigrant roundups, coffee house reviews, and self help videos separate.....just the way they want it.

 

[spat]

I'm waiting for a conservative with some financial backing to create another version of that site so all the libtard, safe space pussies can keep their videos of horrible illegal immigrant roundups, coffee house reviews, and self help videos separate.....just the way they want it.

There are several alternatives out there, it's a market share problem not a money problem. Nobody posts videos to them because they don't have a large installed user base, and the don't have a large installed user base because nobody posts videos.

The only group that has successfully broken the YouTube monopoly is the porn industry.

Just like the only thing keeping Ma Bell a monopoly in the 70's was that nobody could build a competing network, no matter how much money you spent on it. Even if some mega Corp had dumped $100 billion into the necessary infrastructure they wouldn't have been able to get the customers. Nobody would want to switch until all their friends did.

 

[Blimey]

What was the video?

Unfortunately I generally support these private platforms being able to ban for whatever the hell they like. Unfortunately again, though, they have a de facto monopoly thanks to the network effect, which makes competition profoundly difficult to grow. It's a tricky area.

The term hate speech does trigger me, though. It's a meaningless term.

 

[Blimey]

There are several alternatives out there, it's a market share problem not a money problem. Nobody posts videos to them because they don't have a large installed user base, and the don't have a large installed user base because nobody posts videos.

The only group that has successfully broken the YouTube monopoly is the porn industry.

Just like the only thing keeping Ma Bell a monopoly in the 70's was that nobody could build a competing network, no matter how much money you spent on it. Even if some mega Corp had dumped $100 billion into the necessary infrastructure they wouldn't have been able to get the customers. Nobody would want to switch until all their friends did.

Yep, you totally get it. This is also why platforms like craigslist continue to be around even though it's a piece of shit platform (facebook's marketplace is definitely hurting it, finally). It's also why Google has 2-3 times tried and utterly failed to make a meaningful social media network itself.

 

[ManrisFrack]

There are several alternatives out there, it's a market share problem not a money problem. Nobody posts videos to them because they don't have a large installed user base, and the don't have a large installed user base because nobody posts videos.

Doesn't help that any potential competitor to YouTube will have a helluva time getting an app hosted on Play store. 95% of the online videos I watch are on my phone through YouTube's app.

I'll say it again - these companies are hiding behind their "we're just a platform" protection when it comes to being sued over copyright or slander. And yet they have no problem donning their editorial hats when they censor people and content. This should not be allowed. Either they are wholly responsible for their content and can be sued when they allow it to infringe others' rights or they are simply a platform and have no liability for any content and no ability to censor. Think of it this way - should your cell carrier be allowed to drop you if you drop the n-word? And before you say it's different because you pay your cell carrier, YouTube is nothing without content. There is a business relationship there, even if it is more like a barter exchange.

 

[GUNSICK]

Post the video so we can check it out.

 

[Toecutter]

Most of what I watch is on YouTube, it's getting bad, YouTube crushed its competition by offering ad money to creators, now they turn thier backs on people who helped build it.
Creators need to host videos on thier own private sites and find thier own advertising we need an app like kodi to bring all of thier contents to one place.

 

[Mr. terzmo]

I don't twitter/you tube and very little on facebook. Don't need venues to get attention

 

[Jmac00]

big deal, marky fuckerberg banns me on a regular basis

 

[DoD1776]

Post the video so we can check it out.

I don’t have it. It’s on the school computer and they delete it every year. It was just war footage (no death)

 

[spat]

Doesn't help that any potential competitor to YouTube will have a helluva time getting an app hosted on Play store. 95% of the online videos I watch are on my phone through YouTube's app.

I'll say it again - these companies are hiding behind their "we're just a platform" protection when it comes to being sued over copyright or slander. And yet they have no problem donning their editorial hats when they censor people and content. This should not be allowed. Either they are wholly responsible for their content and can be sued when they allow it to infringe others' rights or they are simply a platform and have no liability for any content and no ability to censor. Think of it this way - should your cell carrier be allowed to drop you if you drop the n-word? And before you say it's different because you pay your cell carrier, YouTube is nothing without content. There is a business relationship there, even if it is more like a barter exchange.

The thing you have to be careful about when you suggest changes is how it will affect things like this forum.

The admins here need the ability to ban trolls and other general dregs of the internet, but the site couldn't function if it was liable for everything anyone said.

Aside from the monopolies they hold the tech behemoths are essentially the same thing as forums like this one.

So, a rule that treats them like Ma Bell (forcing them to open their network up to competitors) could work, but most of the general solutions people suggest would end up shutting down things like this forum too.

 

[holdover]

First they came for Dayton, I said nothing because I wasn't Dayton.
Then they came for DOD1776 I said nothing because I wasn't DOD1776

 

[masterswimmer]

First they came for Dayton, I said nothing because I wasn't Dayton.
Then they came for DOD1776 I said nothing because I wasn't DOD1776

Read what @spat said to see why your comment isn't accurate.

The thing you have to be careful about when you suggest changes is how it will affect things like this forum.

The admins here need the ability to ban trolls and other general dregs of the internet, but the site couldn't function if it was liable for everything anyone said.

Aside from the monopolies they hold the tech behemoths are essentially the same thing as forums like this one.

So, a rule that treats them like Ma Bell (forcing them to open their network up to competitors) could work, but most of the general solutions people suggest would end up shutting down things like this forum too.

 

[holdover]

??? I was addressing Dayton. Just kidding around.

 

[Marine Cpl]

One of the YouTube editors is actually a member here and on the Long Island forum. I think they banned him because he changed his name.

 

[ManrisFrack]

The thing you have to be careful about when you suggest changes is how it will affect things like this forum.

The admins here need the ability to ban trolls and other general dregs of the internet, but the site couldn't function if it was liable for everything anyone said.

Aside from the monopolies they hold the tech behemoths are essentially the same thing as forums like this one.

So, a rule that treats them like Ma Bell (forcing them to open their network up to competitors) could work, but most of the general solutions people suggest would end up shutting down things like this forum too.

Very good points. I need to think about it a bit more but here's my initial reaction.

Do they really need unfettered ban ability? The reason it works so well here is because the mods do a very good job of restraining themselves and they've earned our trust. YouTube did well for awhile but now that it has an unassailable market share, there are lines being crossed. If YouTube, forums like this, etc. are the new town square, we need to ensure that all are able to speak - even the leftists and the trolls (or the nutjob yelling about aliens and the imminent apocalypse if you want a more traditional example).

 

[spat]

Very good points. I need to think about it a bit more but here's my initial reaction.

Do they really need unfettered ban ability? The reason it works so well here is because the mods do a very good job of restraining themselves and they've earned our trust. YouTube did well for awhile but now that it has an unassailable market share, there are lines being crossed. If YouTube, forums like this, etc. are the new town square, we need to ensure that all are able to speak - even the leftists and the trolls (or the nutjob yelling about aliens and the imminent apocalypse if you want a more traditional example).

We do not want the government adding more regulations to the internet. It would be a disaster of epic proportions.

The only solution that I can see that won't make things much worse for everyone is some old school trust busting of just the few players with effective monopolies.

 

[Acer-m14]

stop the BS banning or remove the ignore/block buttons/options .. remove the latter and i don't think your platform will last long ..

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

@dayten @DoD1776 , go reread "farenheit 451"

Congrats I think? If you are an enemy of YouTube your probably doing something right.

The left wants a technocrat dictatorship. They want to completely silence and erase opposition thought and ideas.

 

[Mosinitis]

In my experience youtube in general is more informative about WWII then all of our high school and college history classes combined with our documentaries. As much as we don't like to hear it, our participation in the war in Europe wasn't as massive as we are led to believe.

 

[holdover]

You tube is great for history. Ive watched lectures from West point on various wars and battles,something I would otherwise have no way of doing. Ive watched Lectures from the arts students league in NYC from top instructors in the country.

 

[ManrisFrack]

We do not want the government adding more regulations to the internet. It would be a disaster of epic proportions.

The only solution that I can see that won't make things much worse for everyone is some old school trust busting of just the few players with effective monopolies.

Is YouTube actually a monopoly? There are at least a dozen other video hosting services out there. I know because I've been looking for an alternative. The problem is that YouTube has far more content, far better search and curating abilities, and a more easily consumed service overall. Except for their censorship, they have the best product/service. I'm open to forcefully breaking them away from Google but I think it's a dangerous precedent that needs very firm justification. We start swinging the government axe, who knows what we'll hit - especially with half the country whining about how they aren't getting their fair share. Is there a way to mitigate the network effects that Blimey mentioned without using .gov to chop up a corporation?

I do generally agree the more government is a terrible idea. Government can't do much well. Unfortunately, governmental regulation of the internet is a door that was opened decades ago. This whole issue was created, in part, by government protection of internet companies. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects them from litigation but set no clear boundaries on regulation of content. The courts came behind and tried to draw those lines but with Google's war chest that means nothing. For instance, it seems to me that YouTube is getting very close to the behavior that the 9th Circuit deemed beyond immunity in Roommates.com. Their lawyers must know this but still think it's a winnable fight.

I don't think we can remove section 230 protection though. This site, and others like it, would fold immediately under the legal liabilities. Set aside all the 'borrowed' content in the Funny and Political threads and The Bar - just stuff like the NRA hate and 'Hi-Points are garbage' might draw fire.

I think we need to set tight and clear boundaries as to what providers can censor while enjoying 230 immunity. Give up the immunity and you can ban/censor/etc. until your heart's content. Consider that Europe has already taken steps to limit free speech on the internet. If we do nothing, we will end up living under those restrictions. Companies will not create and maintain two different moderation structures unless they have to. I think that's part of the reason that they are begging for more government regulation - regulation that they will no doubt lobby into being the cheapest for them to abide by.

 

[Darth]

Their business their rules doesn't all of a sudden stop because "they are big and I don't agree with them."

 

[ManrisFrack]

Normally I'd agree Darth. The monkey wrench is that the internet has become the primary repository of public discourse. If they put YouTube content behind a pay wall, I'd agree with leaving them alone - to include stripping 230 protection. But anyone with an internet connection can access and post their own discourse just by making an account (unless your discourse is right leaning and/or "hate speech").

 

[spat]

Their business their rules doesn't all of a sudden stop because "they are big and I don't agree with them."

Do you agree with the breakup of Ma Bell ?

A market with an effective monopoly is not a free market.

 

[Marine Cpl]

@Darth is correct. Their house, their rules.

The problem here is that alternative platforms do a poor job of making an alternative. Places like Full30 don’t produce an app. People don’t want an online internet website that can only be used with an internet browser to use. They want and need an app. An app that allows them to share from it, go live from it, and has the ability to cast to their televisions. One that can work in the background. One that gives advertisers an incentive to advertise on it.

Then these places like Full30 don’t work with other companies to band together. So what you end up having is 3 or 4 different alternative sites doing the same thing as Full30 competing with each other on who will be the dominant crap service that isn’t an app. That fragmentation cannot beat YouTube. If they banded together, they can actually produce one solid alternative that’s beneficial to the viewer and the advertiser.

We can only blame ourselves. The ability to create a superior app that’s better than YouTube is there.

 

[Jmac00]

my issue with fuckerberg is his "selective" ban's. Certain words will get you banned. For awhile if you typed the word HONK, that got you banned.

I got banned for three days, at the beginning of the month, for saying "Goatfuckers need to go back to having sex with humans"

two weeks ago I got a seven day ban for something I said, but after four days I appealed the ban by calling FB "a bunch of commie fuck wads that think they have exclusive control of the first amendment, for some reason THAT did not violate community standards?

they are, in a very real sense, trying to control the flow of information to the masses, simply to control the 2020 election. These douche bags want Pres. Trump OUT OF OFFICE, now.