YouTube deletes “lawsuit against vaccine passport” press conference video(twitter.com)
twitter.com
YouTube deletes “lawsuit against vaccine passport” press conference video
https://twitter.com/NMalliotakis/status/1425919714476363778
75 comments
Youtube is now an owned Public Commons. In order to communicate we must pay rent to corporations as our commons is privatized. When the internet began it was public commons because no one owned it.
> ...it calls for public action towards the creation of a publicly funded messaging option for government officials and other official channels that should be held to constitutional standards rather than corporate private standards
It sounds like you're describing https://malliotakis.house.gov/.
It sounds like you're describing https://malliotakis.house.gov/.
Did YouTube delete it, though? The current administration has recently said [1] they are flagging social media posts to identify misinformation. So even if YouTube ultimately clicks the "delete" button, the state is merely laundering censorship through private means, which is grotesque, cowardly, and surely unconstitutional.
[1] https://www.facebook.com/CBSNews/videos/225143126129948/
[1] https://www.facebook.com/CBSNews/videos/225143126129948/
Are they actively deleting secondary references? I mean, if a vlogger posts a video talking about this deletion, will it get deleted?
Not the type of secondary reference you're talking about, but YouTube temporarily banned Rebel Wisdom's Ivermectin Film that was a carefully balanced presentation of ideas from the leaders of both sides of the debate.
Here's their video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2MlXaRxlFo
"it is back up after appeal. It's great that it's been restored - though with no explanation of why it was taken down, or why they decided it was OK to go back up. Strictly speaking according to the YouTube guidelines they were within their rights to take it down, it says clearly "Categorical claims that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19" are not allowed, and Tess Lawrie clearly made these."
Here's their video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2MlXaRxlFo
"it is back up after appeal. It's great that it's been restored - though with no explanation of why it was taken down, or why they decided it was OK to go back up. Strictly speaking according to the YouTube guidelines they were within their rights to take it down, it says clearly "Categorical claims that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19" are not allowed, and Tess Lawrie clearly made these."
Stuff like that has happened before: probably via stupid algorithm. Douglas Lain got a strike on his channel for "medical misinformation" because he referenced footage of Alex Jones being foolish.
The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.”
Going out on a limb here, but in the course of announcing your lawsuit, did you mention any of the myriad covid talking points that youtube has been banning for months now?
And it isn't even mildly disconcerting that your only option is to guess at their rationale because the video was memoryholed?
It wasn't "memoryholed". Youtube is an entertainment site, not a repository of legal filings. And it's not the only option, just the one most likely to be correct.
> Youtube is an entertainment site, not a repository of legal filings
It might not be a repository of legal filings, but it's certainly not just an entertainment site. Opinion-oriented media, news programs, court footage, press releases, and educational videos have all been intentionally promoted in the past by Youtube.
The issue at hand is that some press releases are being permitted (and even promoted by YT) whereas others are not, despite the fact that there's no particularly notable difference in the authority of those speaking. (Obviously I recognize that this press release in particular more likely than not contains dangerous misinformation, but I still object to the idea that Youtube can unilaterally decide what is and is not dangerous misinformation).
It might not be a repository of legal filings, but it's certainly not just an entertainment site. Opinion-oriented media, news programs, court footage, press releases, and educational videos have all been intentionally promoted in the past by Youtube.
The issue at hand is that some press releases are being permitted (and even promoted by YT) whereas others are not, despite the fact that there's no particularly notable difference in the authority of those speaking. (Obviously I recognize that this press release in particular more likely than not contains dangerous misinformation, but I still object to the idea that Youtube can unilaterally decide what is and is not dangerous misinformation).
You can upload press releases to pornhub, that doesn't make it a news site. Stop getting your news from youtube; problem solved.
The question isn't whether I choose to get my news from YouTube or not, it's whether YouTube presents itself as a legitimate source for news consumption or not - and it certainly does. The idea is that some large subset of YouTube viewers will, as a result, assume that they're being exposed to a basket of news representative of the breadth of opinion present among media outlets, when they're actually not.
YT as opposed to what, Comedy Central Daily Show that a generation seems to have gotten their news from? At least on YT you can (currently) pick & choose from politically varied points of view though many creators do seem to be jumping ship because of YTs draconian content policies.
Perhaps you're just trolling but this is an obvious false equivalency. YouTube prominently displays news from MSM without you asking to see it. Certain controversially search terms can be flagged and then only show MSM videos. Neither of these things are true of pornhub.
> Youtube is an entertainment site...
That is a self-refuting statement. If Youtube was just an entertainment site: then they wouldn't be deleting legal content, with apparent public interest, provided to them for free.
That is a self-refuting statement. If Youtube was just an entertainment site: then they wouldn't be deleting legal content, with apparent public interest, provided to them for free.
I have no idea what this argument is. If BikeVideos4U.com deletes a video of someone crashing into a moving train and dying, does that imply their site is no longer about bikes?
You can be an entertainment service and still regulate the content you host. Would you expect Netflix to host this content?
You can be an entertainment service and still regulate the content you host. Would you expect Netflix to host this content?
You might want to reflect on the way you just compared a legal press conference to gore porn, it makes me think that you're either so strongly gripped by pandemic mania that you honestly think that is a reasonable comparison to draw - or you just can't think of a sensible counterpoint. In any case, I really don't think you want to pursue the whole editorial discretion defense...
I didn't compare them. I took the argument I understood was being made, pulled it out of the specific context, and put it in an imagined context that I thought pointed to a flaw in the argument.
That would be believable if I'd argued that platforms should never delete any video under any circumstance, but I didn't, so it isn't. You did make an interesting accidental admission though: you either somehow believe that context doesn't matter, or you know that it does but decided to make an out of context bad faith argument anyway.
Pretending, even for an instant, that this wasn't political censorship is foolish. They know exactly what they're doing.
> It wasn't "memoryholed".
It wasn't? Where can I watch a copy of it then?
It wasn't? Where can I watch a copy of it then?
I believe lawsuits are public info; try the NY county clerk's office.
YouTube is really the poster child for reforming Section 230. Has anyone considered suing Google for violating 230??
They didn’t violate Section 230. Senator Wyden (who was a Congress Rep who cosponsored Section 230) has stated as much, repeatedly.
The law doesn’t require that “platforms” treat content neutrally. It only states that hosts are protected from litigation due to user content if the hosts follow the requirements. There is no explicit or implied punishment for hosts/platforms if they fail to treat content equally. That is simply the host exercising their 1A rights of Free Association (and disassociation).
Be careful what you wish for if you want Section 230 eroded. AFAIK the only erosion so far was SESTA/FOSTA and that destroyed a handful of sites like Craigslist Personals/Casual Encounters. You are advocating trading private company contract enforcement for overbearing threats of government prosecution.
The law doesn’t require that “platforms” treat content neutrally. It only states that hosts are protected from litigation due to user content if the hosts follow the requirements. There is no explicit or implied punishment for hosts/platforms if they fail to treat content equally. That is simply the host exercising their 1A rights of Free Association (and disassociation).
Be careful what you wish for if you want Section 230 eroded. AFAIK the only erosion so far was SESTA/FOSTA and that destroyed a handful of sites like Craigslist Personals/Casual Encounters. You are advocating trading private company contract enforcement for overbearing threats of government prosecution.
That's what you get for making YT the arbiters of truth.
Censorship is dumb and tyrannical. The founding fathers of the US understood this 240+ years ago.
Censorship is dumb and tyrannical. The founding fathers of the US understood this 240+ years ago.
The government isn't censoring anyone. These people can just post their video on a different site or their own site. YouTube is free. You get what you pay for. If you don't like it use a different site or just pony up some of your own money and host it yourself.
That's a straw man argument. I never claimed the government did this.
But if you want to be precise, one side of the government is colluding with the big tech companies.
But if you want to be precise, one side of the government is colluding with the big tech companies.
>The founding fathers of the US understood this 240+ years ago
You're the one bringing up the 'founding fathers'. This isn't a constitutional issue. You're not being censored. YouTube is a private company. If you don't like don't use it. That's how free markets work. This Nicole Malliotakis person has her own website. Nothing is stopping her from posting it there.
>I never claimed the government did this
>one side of the government is colluding with the big tech companies.
What? Those are contradictory statements. Pick one.
You're the one bringing up the 'founding fathers'. This isn't a constitutional issue. You're not being censored. YouTube is a private company. If you don't like don't use it. That's how free markets work. This Nicole Malliotakis person has her own website. Nothing is stopping her from posting it there.
>I never claimed the government did this
>one side of the government is colluding with the big tech companies.
What? Those are contradictory statements. Pick one.
YT is not “the arbiter of truth”. It has the ability to curate content on its own property just like you and I.
The founding fathers mandated smallpox vaccines without discussion and a few Congress sessions later required sailors to buy health insurance and passed the Sedition Act, which is close enough to censorship.
What is dumb is acting like this is a slam dunk issue. There are valuable and relevant supports on both sides of this issue.
I would love to see someone unseat YT’s position as the biggest UGC video database (hopefully one that puts effort into DMCA counter-claims), but this is what the market have given us.
The founding fathers mandated smallpox vaccines without discussion and a few Congress sessions later required sailors to buy health insurance and passed the Sedition Act, which is close enough to censorship.
What is dumb is acting like this is a slam dunk issue. There are valuable and relevant supports on both sides of this issue.
I would love to see someone unseat YT’s position as the biggest UGC video database (hopefully one that puts effort into DMCA counter-claims), but this is what the market have given us.
As the screws tighten, it’s fascinating to watch more and more moderates say “enough is enough”, while the ever-shrinking group of die-hard tankies are now just saying the quiet part out loud:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/we-need-big-brother-to-be...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/we-need-big-brother-to-be...
Can we just stop using YouTube instead of complaining every time they do something totalitarian?JUST.STOP.USING.YOUTUBE
It's easy to stop using YouTube, it's not easy to stop everyone else using it.
It's almost as if there are differences of opinions...
You are free to not use YouTube, just as I am free to use it. As is everyone else in this thread. You are free to vote with your wallet, not with mine.
You are free to not use YouTube, just as I am free to use it. As is everyone else in this thread. You are free to vote with your wallet, not with mine.
What does “easy” have to do with anything?
The fact is that what YT did was legal, so the “easy” thing to do is complain about it, which won’t change their behavior. All of the things that would change this behavior are hard things.
The fact is that what YT did was legal, so the “easy” thing to do is complain about it, which won’t change their behavior. All of the things that would change this behavior are hard things.
The problem is the network effect. Unless a ton of people move to some other platform at the same time, you're worse off individually for leaving.
There’s a long list of alternatives (https://alternativeto.net/software/youtube/) but none have the kind of mindshare, content, and momentum YouTube has. We need content creators of all kinds to publish on decentralized platforms, not just those who have been banned and driven away from YouTube. But it’s a chicken and egg thing - advertisers won’t bother with sites that have small audiences. I think I agree that the users who care (particularly political moderates and conservatives) should consider where they spend their attention if they hope to halt the censorship trend.
Remember when they were wringing their hands as they hemmed and hawed ("oh, gosh, we do host a bunch of other garbage, how do we word this?") about removing content by a certain ex-politician they loathed. It took them a while to work up the nerve to censor the then president of the US.
Then, it was the ex-president's allies and they established rules about what was and wasn't acceptable in public discourse. What would be truth and fiction. What was conspiracy and truth. What was Covid truth and not (disregarding the often contradicting policies from WHO and CDC)
And everyone on one side f the aisle was like, yeah! Get 'im! Damned liar(s)! It's their platform, they can do what they want. It's not the government so it's not censorship. They only censor bigots.
And how do they treat things in Thailand, Hong Kong or Myanmar, who is the official government and who is the insurrectionist, who is truth and who is usurper?
Well, here we are, very much closer to the plateauing/basining(?) of the slippery slope as we find ourselves at the bottom --with the willful approval of a great proportion of the population because, you know, slippery slopes are fallacies.
Then, it was the ex-president's allies and they established rules about what was and wasn't acceptable in public discourse. What would be truth and fiction. What was conspiracy and truth. What was Covid truth and not (disregarding the often contradicting policies from WHO and CDC)
And everyone on one side f the aisle was like, yeah! Get 'im! Damned liar(s)! It's their platform, they can do what they want. It's not the government so it's not censorship. They only censor bigots.
And how do they treat things in Thailand, Hong Kong or Myanmar, who is the official government and who is the insurrectionist, who is truth and who is usurper?
Well, here we are, very much closer to the plateauing/basining(?) of the slippery slope as we find ourselves at the bottom --with the willful approval of a great proportion of the population because, you know, slippery slopes are fallacies.
He tried to stage a coup, using their platforms. This was after he broke Facebook, Google and Twitter's TOS countless times. Stop trying to shift the goal posts to suit your argument.
You're looking at one person --that's the problem. People only see things in front of them.
This affects more than one person (this was entirely predictable). He was the excuse. That is all. Now that they got "permission" to suppress ideas as they wish, they, surprise! They are.
This affects more than one person (this was entirely predictable). He was the excuse. That is all. Now that they got "permission" to suppress ideas as they wish, they, surprise! They are.
> You're looking at one person --that's the problem. People only see things in front of them.
It wasn't a single person. It was the vast majority of a political party, involving people in government, military, law enforcement, and useful idiots required to fill in a mob.
It wasn't a single person. It was the vast majority of a political party, involving people in government, military, law enforcement, and useful idiots required to fill in a mob.
>Remember when they were wringing their hands as they hemmed and hawed about removing content by a certain ex-politician they loathed. It took them a while to work up the nerve to censor the then president of the US.
No? Donald Trump's official Youtube channel is still up and running[0].
And you seriously think the only reason other social media platforms didn't ban Trump for four years is that they needed to "work up the nerve?" Not because he went a little unhinged and started ranting conspiracy theories and undermining the integrity of the election?
[0]https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAql2DyGU2un1Ei2nMYsqOA
No? Donald Trump's official Youtube channel is still up and running[0].
And you seriously think the only reason other social media platforms didn't ban Trump for four years is that they needed to "work up the nerve?" Not because he went a little unhinged and started ranting conspiracy theories and undermining the integrity of the election?
[0]https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAql2DyGU2un1Ei2nMYsqOA
That was one example everyone knows about. Talk about Ivermectin, or previously, WIV lab release hypothesis... all censored at the time. (now they have allowed some discussion again, but the damage is done and agenda realized).
Do you know much about the MMR vaccine autism scandal? I make no assumption that you do, just curious.
This was a case where the (obviously from the start) bad science was propagated, primarily through mainstream media, leading to basically the entire anti-vaccine movement we see today.
The question I think this raises is: can we trust typical journalists to do their due diligence when they make claims about very serious public health issues? In the context of the Wakefield MMR scandal, I think we were shown that the answer is no. Following that, the question is what to do about it.
This was a case where the (obviously from the start) bad science was propagated, primarily through mainstream media, leading to basically the entire anti-vaccine movement we see today.
The question I think this raises is: can we trust typical journalists to do their due diligence when they make claims about very serious public health issues? In the context of the Wakefield MMR scandal, I think we were shown that the answer is no. Following that, the question is what to do about it.
What damage was done, and what agenda realized? I thought censorship alone was the agenda.
what do you mean “what damage was done”?
I hope it's not rude for me to point out that that is a very direct question.
mc32 claimed damage was done, and I'm asking for clarification as to what specifically that damage was.
Ivermectin? Actual studies now prove it effective. YouTube banned people for talking about it and people died because of it. How’s that?
There are too many one sentence questions on these issues of censorship. I would say they provide no value to the conversation.
There are too many one sentence questions on these issues of censorship. I would say they provide no value to the conversation.
>Ivermectin? Actual studies now prove it effective. YouTube banned people for talking about it and people died because of it. How’s that?
I haven't seen the studies you're talking about, but the FDA claims Ivermectin hasn't yet been proven effective, and the WHO says it should only be used in clinical trials. But assuming for the same of argument you're correct, your claim is that the only available source of knowledge about Ivermectin anywhere would have been videos which were deleted from Youtube, making it impossible for anyone to avail themselves of this miracle cure due to Youtube's "censorship", and that there are people who avoided taking any of the other existing and effective COVID vaccines and who died of COVID as a result, and that Youtube is therefore to blame.
That's pure speculation based on an already far-fetched premise.
I haven't seen the studies you're talking about, but the FDA claims Ivermectin hasn't yet been proven effective, and the WHO says it should only be used in clinical trials. But assuming for the same of argument you're correct, your claim is that the only available source of knowledge about Ivermectin anywhere would have been videos which were deleted from Youtube, making it impossible for anyone to avail themselves of this miracle cure due to Youtube's "censorship", and that there are people who avoided taking any of the other existing and effective COVID vaccines and who died of COVID as a result, and that Youtube is therefore to blame.
That's pure speculation based on an already far-fetched premise.
I think they were referring to the removal, almost a week after January 6th, of Trump videos and the suspension of uploads to his YouTube account. It looks like the newest videos on there are from 7 months ago.
YouTube deletes Trump video and suspends new uploads: A new video on the president’s account violated YouTube policy on inciting violence. https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2021/1/12/22218757/you...
YouTube deletes Trump video and suspends new uploads: A new video on the president’s account violated YouTube policy on inciting violence. https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2021/1/12/22218757/you...
Either way, Youtube didn't ban him, which contradicts the premise that they were just looking for an excuse to ban him because they loathed him. If that were the case, his content wouldn't exist on the platform anywhere.
It doesn't seem like much of a slippery slope if it goes down then comes back up again.
It doesn't seem like much of a slippery slope if it goes down then comes back up again.
>It doesn't seem like much of a slippery slope if it goes down then comes back up again.
once a precedent is set, a transient acceptance of the action is established as a prior act.
you don't re-cork that genie, that's the whole idea of the slippery slope argument.
forever-more when YouTube considers an action towards something it can always now be said .. "Well in the case of X we did Y."
The 'slippery slope' isn't referring to the actions committed themselves, it's referring to a pattern of acceptance and renormalization that occurs after which biases the decision-making group into further actions of a similar vein.
once a precedent is set, a transient acceptance of the action is established as a prior act.
you don't re-cork that genie, that's the whole idea of the slippery slope argument.
forever-more when YouTube considers an action towards something it can always now be said .. "Well in the case of X we did Y."
The 'slippery slope' isn't referring to the actions committed themselves, it's referring to a pattern of acceptance and renormalization that occurs after which biases the decision-making group into further actions of a similar vein.
I do feel compelled to point out that the slippery slope argument is in fact a type of fallacy. Like, if you look up a list of fallacies there it is, the "slippery slope argument".
How has it came back up again? Are you saying that some social media site that banned Trump has since unbanned him?
> And everyone on one side f the aisle was like, yeah! Get 'im! Damned liar(s)! It's their platform, they can do what they want. It's not the government so it's not censorship. They only censor bigots.
I'm not from the US thus I have no dog in the race, but even I am fully aware that the rhetoric regarding "it's their platform, they can do what they want" is a very specific realization of the much broader and weaponized argument of "it's their business, they can do what they want" that has been used extensively for years by the political party that supported the incumbent candidate.
The "it's their business, they can do what they want" is an argument used extensicely to whitewash the attack and persecution of minorities and political rivals, as is epitome by the infamous "gay wedding cakes" meme.
So ultimately what this argument illustrates is that there is a political and ideological movement in the US which is adamant in demanding they should be immune to the rules they actively force upon others. Up until that moment, the incumbent's party was very adamant on the concept of arbitrarily denying access to goods and services to what they perceive as political and ideological reactionaries. That sentiment suddenly shifted once the consequences also applied to them.
I'm not from the US thus I have no dog in the race, but even I am fully aware that the rhetoric regarding "it's their platform, they can do what they want" is a very specific realization of the much broader and weaponized argument of "it's their business, they can do what they want" that has been used extensively for years by the political party that supported the incumbent candidate.
The "it's their business, they can do what they want" is an argument used extensicely to whitewash the attack and persecution of minorities and political rivals, as is epitome by the infamous "gay wedding cakes" meme.
So ultimately what this argument illustrates is that there is a political and ideological movement in the US which is adamant in demanding they should be immune to the rules they actively force upon others. Up until that moment, the incumbent's party was very adamant on the concept of arbitrarily denying access to goods and services to what they perceive as political and ideological reactionaries. That sentiment suddenly shifted once the consequences also applied to them.
Ah well... Youtube is a private platform. They are free to remove any video for any reason or no reason at all. If you don't like it, you are free to create your own YouTube. They are not obligated to let you use their website to spread your ideas.
[deleted]
Let’s be honest - YouTube’s “moderation” is just a vector for the illiberal employees who have gained control over it to amplify their own ideology while suppressing all others. The justifications used for such actions are just a set of shallow euphemisms that try to falsely frame it all as a virtuous program to benefit a society they claim doesn’t know any better and must be treated like children. It’s inappropriate and their opaque influence and control over information is no less disturbing than foreign propaganda from state actors.
We need to treat large digital platforms like public utilities. Social media is the new digital town square. And large tech conglomerates are too powerful, and need to be split up where possible, and regulated like a public agency where they can’t be (network effects).
We need to treat large digital platforms like public utilities. Social media is the new digital town square. And large tech conglomerates are too powerful, and need to be split up where possible, and regulated like a public agency where they can’t be (network effects).
There's a bold assumption in your position that the regulators charged with wielding the power would do so with greater restraint or less paternalism than the platforms do now themselves.
What I really would expect to result from regulating the big social media players is that you'd simply institutionalize their dominant position. Regulatory regimes tend to discourage upstarts and often do little to reign in incumbents. After 2008 when increased regulation came after those bad "too-big-to-fail" banks... did we end up with smaller, but more diverse banking institutions or even fewer bigger banks that all looked pretty much the same? I could very well be wrong, but my sense is that we didn't move solve that problem and I don't think regulated big social media would be much better than what we have today.
What I really would expect to result from regulating the big social media players is that you'd simply institutionalize their dominant position. Regulatory regimes tend to discourage upstarts and often do little to reign in incumbents. After 2008 when increased regulation came after those bad "too-big-to-fail" banks... did we end up with smaller, but more diverse banking institutions or even fewer bigger banks that all looked pretty much the same? I could very well be wrong, but my sense is that we didn't move solve that problem and I don't think regulated big social media would be much better than what we have today.
If the government were in charge of a social media site, the First Amendment would unquestionably apply to their moderation powers, so even though it'd probably be a mismanaged disaster in a lot of ways, it'd be way better than the status quo as far as freedom of speech and censorship goes.
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....
- Noam Chomsky, The Common Good
I agree, but this doesn't bring mention to the real point :
Messaging and telecommunications groups that are privately held are de-facto responsible for national presidential public messaging in the United States, and this gives them legal leverage to commit whatever kind of censorship they care to.
This doesn't call for action towards the censoring body, it calls for public action towards the creation of a publicly funded messaging option for government officials and other official channels that should be held to constitutional standards rather than corporate private standards.