Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Unnecessary Censorship

Recommended Posts

Guest

A funny and brilliant YouTube video posted in 2008 by a cartoonist named 43Alley used in conjunction with an Eddie Izzard stand up routine audio now requires signing into Google to view it because the video "may be disturbing to some viewers". The video is an innocuous piece of great comedy. I cannot believe that I now have to create a YouTube/Google account to view it.

 

I had been watching it without "signing in" for a decade and now some crybaby gets to put the kabash on it? I can see a beheading or a "live" suicide, but I can't watch this comedy bit without signing in?

 

I don't want to have an account with the "all-knowing" corporate bohemoth,  Google.  However, if you have a Google or YouTube account, sign in and have a great laugh. This is really fantastic stuff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afsa5gkvmlU 

 

I just needed to rant because when I went to watch it today, I could not watch it because I do not have any Google accounts (on purpose).

 

Enjoy! You will laugh till your butt cracks a second time.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afsa5gkvmlU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like it's been age restricted:

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of censorship youtube has released a new policy in which they are taking down white supremist, Nazi related videos, and also fake news and conspiracy theory videos like flat earth.

 

Now while on the surface this might seem like a good idea, and the intentions are good, I do worry that we could end up in a situation where a bunch of people at google are deciding what is and isn't fit for public consumption.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see this as a bad thing. It's just a thing. 

 

Youtube is a platform owned by Google. They are perfectly entitled to decide what they do and do not want to publish, and under what conditions. This isn't really censorship. It's the essence of free-market capitalism. If you don't like it,  and you want to see some cutting edge flat-earth wackadoo, the internet's a big place. It would be silly to get mad at Walmart for not selling pickled rats. Even if there was a market for them. Walmart doesn't have to sell anything. And YouTube doesn't have to host anything. 

 

I understand that having to sign in due to age restrictions is annoying. It's a bit like getting carded when buying beer. But c'est la vie. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

I don't see this as a bad thing. It's just a thing. 

 

Youtube is a platform owned by Google. They are perfectly entitled to decide what they do and do not want to publish, and under what conditions. This isn't really censorship. It's the essence of free-market capitalism. 

The essence of 19th-century-style free-market capitalism, I’d say. 

The problem here is that YouTube has a near-monopoly in its market.  If a car manufacturer, an airline or a computer maker had such dominance in its market, they would be broken up by anti-trust regulations in the US and Europe.  I’m not sure why anti-trust regulations don’t apply to social media platforms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TABA said:

The essence of 19th-century-style free-market capitalism, I’d say. 

The problem here is that YouTube has a near-monopoly in its market.  If a car manufacturer, an airline or a computer maker had such dominance in its market, they would be broken up by anti-trust regulations in the US and Europe.  I’m not sure why anti-trust regulations don’t apply to social media platforms. 

 

Yes, this is true. The extent to which Google has monopolized the web is disturbing. I'm not sure how this can be fixed,  though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

"Age restrictions" on a piece of harmless satire addressing the creation story while children all over the the U.S. are given lessons in fantasy, brutality, fear, and superstition in tax-free institutions called churches, mosques,  synagogues, etc. with no age restriction. 

 

To prove a point: On You Tube I just watched Saddam Hussein get hanged without signing in. On You Tube I just watched a politician blow his head off in a 1983 press conference without signing in. On You Tube I just watched an Indian woman hang herself without signing in. Done.

 

Oh no!  Eddie Izzard has humorously pointed out some of the ridiculousness of what you are being brainwashed into in Sunday school - PROTECT THE CHILDREN!

 

Hard core porn? Don't need a YouTube account for that. No humorous cartoons about the creation story but little Johnny and Jenny can see a fisting video anytime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

43Alley made some funny videos. I never saw anything he made that would require censoring. I discovered his videos a few months back. He’s a talented guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2019 at 10:45 PM, disillusioned said:

Youtube is a platform owned by Google. They are perfectly entitled to decide what they do and do not want to publish, and under what conditions. This isn't really censorship. It's the essence of free-market capitalism. 

 

I agree with this, and this is along the lines of why I (at least initially) agreed with Rugby Australia in firing Israel Folau in regards to his social media post about various groups going to hell. A freely owned company not under Government Control should be allowed to set what standards it likes for it's employees and for what it 'sells'. (I'm not sure how this concept would fit in with the cake shop owners not baking a cake for a gay wedding. The court ruled in their favour I think - i.e. a business owner can decide what they sell and who to.)

 

On 6/6/2019 at 10:53 PM, TABA said:

The essence of 19th-century-style free-market capitalism, I’d say. 

The problem here is that YouTube has a near-monopoly in its market.  If a car manufacturer, an airline or a computer maker had such dominance in its market, they would be broken up by anti-trust regulations in the US and Europe.  I’m not sure why anti-trust regulations don’t apply to social media platforms. 

 

And I also agree with this point as well which puts me in a contradictory position where I think a company should be able to do anything under the law, but in the case of super monopolies I also think there is some responsibility to provide fair access for all views.

 

It's a tricky one. Personally on the Discord I admin there is stuff we don't allow and wouldn't. You could cry censorship but as Disillusioned mentioned, if you don't like my house rules you can go find another playground. IF however our lil channel became so large that is was a massive influencing effect on society .Think Youtube, Twitter etc - BOTH of which are controlled by Google, as well as Google search. This company can literally decide what you see on multiple platforms, and with that power I think comes a social responsibility.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that, as @TABA alluded to, the "normal" rules of free market capitalism are outdated. The world, and markets, have evolved, but the rules aren't keeping up. This is a problem. We should probably try to fix it.

 

But then there's an even bigger problem: how can it be fixed? Any critique of capitalism, at least here in north America, seems to be demonized from the outset. But set that aside. This is clearly an international problem. We're in a position now where no one country can tell Google what to do. So who can fix it? I just don't see an answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

It seems to me that, as @TABA alluded to, the "normal" rules of free market capitalism are outdated. The world, and markets, have evolved, but the rules aren't keeping up. This is a problem. We should probably try to fix it.

 

But then there's an even bigger problem: how can it be fixed? Any critique of capitalism, at least here in north America, seems to be demonized from the outset. But set that aside. This is clearly an international problem. We're in a position now where no one country can tell Google what to do. So who can fix it? I just don't see an answer.

 

Ultimately the power lies in the hands of the people: I.e. they stop using google services and go create their own. But humans are apathetic and I don't see this happening, much like I do not see humans making a significant change to their lifestyles to counter global warming before its too late to avoid disastrous locked in warming.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Ultimately the power lies in the hands of the people: I.e. they stop using google services and go create their own. But humans are apathetic and I don't see this happening, much like I do not see humans making a significant change to their lifestyles to counter global warming before its too late to avoid disastrous locked in warming.

 

Right. And with climate change at least there is a potential imptus to drive social change. With Google, there's no real reason to want to make a change. How could we improve on what we already have? Even if we could, it would be damn hard to actually do it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

 

Right. And with climate change at least there is a potential imptus to drive social change. With Google, there's no real reason to want to make a change. How could we improve on what we already have? Even if we could, it would be damn hard to actually do it.

 

Good point. For me personally it's easier to adjust my lifestyle and influence others than it is to affect the inner machinations of Google. Heck affecting government is easier than affecting Google because I can vote and submit my thoughts on various legislation etc. Apparently I can't do that with Google :D 

 

Especially since 95% of content consumed of social media is of no concern. I mean dog videos, and make up tutorials have more subscribers than channels that might carry content that's at risk of being censored. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Social media, for the most part, contains current topics, events and issues.  Also, social media is rather infected with much noise, i.e., irrelevancies, agendas, fake news, lies, etc.  Wading through the nonsense is cumbersome and wastes time.

 

On the other hand, at least for me, there is plenty of quality content to explore, more than I could ever absorb during my lifetime, from other sources, i.e., books, papers, educational videos, etc.

 

As to the OP's original complaint (who is no longer a member), he's a whiner.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 6/7/2019 at 6:56 PM, sdelsolray said:

 

As to the OP's original complaint (who is no longer a member), he's a whiner.

 

 

I wish he would do a 3000 word essay on why it's so horrible to create a throw-away login for Youtube.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.