YouTube’s Latest Purge
https://off-guardian.org/2019/06/05/...-latest-purge/
YouTube will begin a giant purge of its site to remove videos supporting white supremacy, conspiracy theories and Nazis
https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/tec...o-13939314.php
A YouTube spokesperson on Wednesday told Business Insider that
"thousands" of channels will be removed as a result of the new policy.
celebrating this latest “purge”
The Guardian reported:
YouTube bans videos promoting Nazi ideology
Whilst the
Financial Times went with:
YouTube to ban supremacist videos
Both these headlines are wildly inaccurate, deliberately playing the racism/white supremacy angle in the hopes that people will clap along without reading anything else.
Vox was a little more truthful in its headline, reporting:
YouTube finally banned content from neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers, and Sandy Hook skeptics
The Independent likewise:
YouTube to delete thousands of accounts after it bans supremacists, conspiracy theorists and other ‘harmful’ users
However,
even these headlines – though a touch closer to the whole truth – leave out some really important information
As much as
the media are playing the neo-Nazi/hate speech angle,
there’s far more to it than that.
To really dig down into what this means, we need to ignore the media and go straight to the source.
This is YouTube’s official statement on the matter, posted on their blog.
The bans, contrary to the media headlines, are not about racism.
They are far more incoherent than that – they are about
“supremacist content”.
YouTube’s
delightfully vague description of which, is as follows:
videos alleging that a group is superior in order
to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion
based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste,
religion, sexual orientation or veteran status
Honestly,
almost any video you wanted – that expresses a political position – could be twisted into fitting that description.
But it doesn’t end there:
Finally, we will remove content denying that well-documented violent events,
like the Holocaust or the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, took place.
What does “well documented” mean? It’s a deliberately ambiguous phrase.
The cited examples, the Holocaust and Sandy Hook, are chosen for shock value – but they are only examples: “Like the holocaust”.
What other examples might there be?
The Douma gas attack from last year?
The poisoning of Sergei Skripal?
You can’t deny people the right to ask simple questions.
“Did that really happen?”,
“Is the government telling the truth?”
These are the basic questions of journalism.
You can’t simply pass history off as “well documented” and put it beyond question.
Don’t let them cite the Holocaust as an example to bully you into silence.
Free speech applies to all topics, and all opinions,
no matter how “well documented” they are.
It doesn’t stop at that either, “violent incidents” are just the start. There are other kinds of “harmful content”:
harmful misinformation, such as videos promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness, or claiming the earth is flat
Again,
note the use of extreme examples – flat earth and “miracle cures”. It’s manipulation.
What they’re talking about is “well documented”
science.
They mean the big three: Climate change, GM crops and vaccinations.
Questioning any of those will become “harmful”.
Whether censoring lies or censoring truth, censorship serves the same agenda – protecting authority.
What is “harmful content”?
Harmful content
is anything that attacks the “well documented” official consensus.
you don’t even have to actually break the rules anymore:
In addition to removing videos that violate our policies, we also want to reduce the spread of content that comes right up to the line.
See?
YouTube will ban channels, or at least suppress creators, who “bump up against the line”.
Meaning, even if you’re incredibly clever, and work seriously hard to keep anything that a dishonest mind could potentially twist into “hate speech” out of your content…
they’ll just ban you anyway and claim you “nearly did hate speech”.
Another way they’re combating all this “dangerous misinformation” is by
“boosting authoritative sources”:
For example, if a user is watching a video that comes close to violating our policies,
our systems may include more videos from authoritative sources (like top news channels) in the “watch next” panel.
For example, if you watch an alt-news interview with Vanessa Beeley,
your next “recommended video” will be a piece of western propaganda mainstream news
from a massive corporate interest an authoritative source
telling you to ignore everything you just heard, and/or calling Beeley an “apologist for war crimes”.
It’s a beautiful system, really. Very efficient and not-at-all Orwellian.
Outside of its wishy-washy definitions, its incredibly vague buzzwords, and its platitude filled “reassurances”,
the most important part of YouTube’s statement is this:
As we do this, we’re partnering closely with lawmakers and civil society around the globe
to limit the spread of violent extremist content online.
“
Partnering closely with lawmakers”
means “working with the government”,
essentially
an admission that YouTube (owned by Google, in turn, owned by Alphabet Corp.)
will remove any videos the state orders them to remove.
Something we all knew already, but it’s refreshing they’re admitting it.
============
Ole Dammegård –
“Terror” – are you kidding me?
It’s stuff like this they don’t like.
Ole’s
account was binned a while ago.
Connect With Us