• H3H3 Gets Strike Live on Stream While Defending YouTube in Alex Jones Censorship
    43 replies, posted
https://youtu.be/I_kS4bTY47M Can't make this shit up, lads
It's hard not to feel that youtube is moderated by literal chimps when this kind of stuff happens.
Minimum upkeep, maximum profit. If they had it their way, the whole site would be automated.
People posted podcast clips on youtube and monetized it and youtubes shit copyright claim system made it so whoever did it first gets the rights to the video automatically, and needed human review every time to fix, so this was a way to fix that.
Honestly, YouTube, Facebook, Google, Twitter, Apple, Microsoft - they can get away with pretty much anything they want short of murdering someone live. Just goes to show money buys everything - particularly in the realm of the internet where true laws and regulations have yet to be strictly defined. I could give a fuck less if AJ was banned, but shit like this just goes to show how steep of a cliff you sit on when creating content that can be considered, or related to, other controversial content.
My knowledge may be out of date on this, but I don't think YouTube has ever turned a profit to this day. It's a useful asset for Google in that it pipes into other projects of their's, but I'd rather have YouTube in its current shitty state than nothing at all. I have some sympathy for YouTube in that it's totally untenable to moderate all videos manually - there are such a ludicrous amount of videos being uploaded every hour that there's no way they could feasibly use humans to do it. AI is the only way and AI makes mistakes all the time. I do expect the service to improve over time, but it's probably never going to be perfect. I do wish they'd mark certain channels like Ethan's and PhilipDeFranco's with a variable to say that they're "good actors" though, meaning a human at least had to review their work to establish demonetisation.
that means some mongoloid decided a universal blacklisting of even the concept or name of alex jones is just a right banger of an idea. 10/10, way to prove everyone concerns wrong.
I'm pretty sure it's because they showed InfoWars clips, not due to his name being mentioned. I assume they did this in case others tried to reupload Alex Jones content, which they obviously would try to do.
Well either way, they're trying to un-person alex jones, which is the point. Let the idiot talk, let everyone see him for what he is, and stop drawing attention to him by desperately trying to bury him. It's just going to make everyone who follows him triple down, because his entire thing is "Muh oppression and conspiracy against da truf" and it's forcing everyone who values basic freedom of expression to defend fucking gay frogs hillary is a literal demon meme man.
>Let the idiot talk, let everyone see him for what he is Yeah, no. We don't give insane people a free podium to convince other insane people. You forget exactly how much of a following Alex Jones has. People treat his speeches like the gospel. Stop pretending that just because intelligent people know it's bullshit, that there isn't a huge group of fucking dumbasses who will not only believe it but crusade for his views.
Alex Jones has caused the parents who lost their kids at Sandy Hook years of harassment to the point where they've had to find new homes multiple times due to his bullshit. This alone should've been enough to get him removed from all social media platforms. "Let the guy talk so everyone can see how dumb he is!" has never worked and it will never work.
https://twitter.com/RealAlexJones/status/1028117496556122112 Ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
"But muh memes"
God dammit Ethan called it to the fucking T.
People will always fall for charlatans and manipulators, the problem with taking them out of the out of the public sphere is then they will go unchallenged. It's practically a meme that Alex Jones is crazy but that is because he's in the public sphere. If Jones goes to a platform strictly for right-wing crazies, there will be no one there talking about how crazy he really is, and certainly no one debunking his claims, and that is even more dangerous. Also I don't think I like the idea of just a few people at Google, or Twitter, or anywhere really deciding who is and isn't insane, Alex Jones is obviously insane, but there are plenty more plenty gray areas that I don't think they should decided for us.
I can see the concern of giving him more attention, but how long will that last? Infowars will have their 15 minutes, but after that people will move on. Their website's still up anyways.
Infowars has had their 15 minutes for near a decade. Stop giving them places to spread.
Ethan has done a good enough job of that on his own well before this.
The notion that extremists will just sort themselves out because the public will know to trust their better judgement, and common sense can only lead to their idiocy being exposed, is moronic, lazy, and nothing short of childish as far as worldviews go. That is not, and has never been, how public opinion works.
So are you saying we need Google, Twitter, and Facebook to use their wise judgement and common sense for us? Because that sounds like what you're suggesting. I think others are arguing that in general It is better for people to use their own judgement and common sense do discern truth rather than having someone else you don't know decide it for you.
I'm suggesting that if you want idiots to be outed at idiots, you need to actively prove time and time again they are idiot and go out of your way to expose them as such, not rely purely on the pretense that people will know better. It takes time, effort and a lot of patience to properly understand the mechanics of rhetoric. More than most people are willing to display when it comes to those things. There is a reason why there are channels dedicated to pointing out exactly how the tactics of people like Paul Joseph Watson function, they're not as obvious as you would think and they do require some time to notice. Public opinion is easily swayed because most people are not willing nor caring enough to really look into things. They'll eat up what they're being fed. I'm not saying that google and co should act as benevolent gods to the obscure masses but the fact they are willing to take into account the very real issue that most people won't know the full story and won't care to know the full story means that it is extraordinarily easy for fascists to spread using their platform. It is down the line more responsible for Youtube to shut down people like these as hard as possible than it is to let them speak out in the open.
Maximum profit? Youtube has never turned a profit in it's entire lifespan. Everything Google has done to the site has just been a struggle to get the damn website revenue neutral, much less turning a profit. They have to automate, because there's so much shit on that website, no one would be able to go through it all by hand. I agree to some extent that there should be some more oversight in cases once they're properly disputed, especially if it's a big channel (Something like the 100,000 sub mark that someone in this thread mentioned would be a good idea), but ever since the adpocalypse Youtube has been hurting and Google has just been trying to get the site from dragging down the rest of the company.
The ethic qualms of removing Alex Jones from YouTube and etc are pretty similar to the ethics of removing Tudd from here. Maybe he isn't technically breaking any rules (in Tudd's case anyway, Jones was), but almost everyone knows he clearly, obviously should be removed for the betterment of the community. It's important to remember that YouTube, iTunes, etc are owned by companies, not the government. Being able to use their platforms for your message is a privilege, not a right. Companies can remove anything they want from their platforms for any reason, and they'd be well within their rights to do so. Is it kind of questionable for corporations to make ethical decisions for us? Yeah. But in fringe cases like Alex Jones, where the person is clearly way past the line between okay and not okay, I don't think it's so bad to allow the maintainers of a private platform to make that call.
Does this basically boil down to "He had Jordan Peterson on twice" and nothing more? Because it's hilariously retarded to even associate him with the right of anything when he's expressly voiced his opinions reasonably. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dzz6gx09zLM Like at this point it just seems like people are mad at him doing inconsequential things claiming they're proof of affiliation with his politics when it really just seems like idiotic dog whistling from both sides of the aisle from people who don't like him, but now because of stupid inconsequential thing #48 they can say they have a reason to hate him now.
Keep in mind that Youtube isn't meant to be profitable, it's not your common revenue driven business. Youtube is a data service that handles billions of users and tens, if not, hundreds of billions of views every year. That data is incredibly valuable to Google, and to other groups they're potentially selling that data to. The hold adage "If you're not buying something, you're being sold" holds true. I don't think Twitter has ever been profitable either in their 12ish years, but they're still and incredibly valuable business and platform. I'm sure theres others out there like Twitter and Youtube.
Since you're not in charge of planet earth I'm curious as to why you think a person who podcasts guests for a literal living needs to only ever pick guests you like and agree with, and also have all the same other opinions as you, despite you're probbaly not really qualified to run earth by yourself and thus have all the right opinions all the time.
They literally haven't been able to make it profitable ever since they bought it.
calm your tits
I'm curious as to where I ever said anything to the effect of this, and why you thought such an insanely stupid post would prove or do anything.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.