So this is how shadow banning works on youtu.be?

[Amuro0079]

I've heard about censorship on youtube before, but don't know it's this bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYRsWsNM8JE

[Dom]

There are countless court rulings on this. First Amendment and Free Speech protection only applies to the relationship between the government and the people.

Not between companies/platforms and the people.

[Magma Dragoon]

引用自 Dom：

There are countless court rulings on this. First Amendment and Free Speech protection only applies to the relationship between the government and the people.

Not between companies/platforms and the people.

This is wrong and big tech is de facto an arm of the state.

[Zero, Dark Knight]

引用自 Magma Dragoon：

This is wrong and big tech is de facto an arm of the state.

It's wrong? Why? We're the people who gave it power, who made it popular, world wide users. Lack of stopping it at key points. etc.

Why is it wrong "now"?

[Dom]

引用自 Magma Dragoon：

引用自 Dom：

There are countless court rulings on this. First Amendment and Free Speech protection only applies to the relationship between the government and the people.

Not between companies/platforms and the people.

This is wrong and big tech is de facto an arm of the state.

Not wrong. Go read the court rulings. Big tech can censor people if they want to.

[Dom]

https://www.carnegielibrary.org/the-first-amendment-and-censorship/
The First Amendment only protects your speech from government censorship. It applies to federal, state, and local government actors.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/First-Amendment
The First Amendment, however, applies only to restrictions imposed by the government, since the First and Fourteenth amendments refer only to government ...

[permanent name]

引用自 Magma Dragoon：

引用自 Dom：

There are countless court rulings on this. First Amendment and Free Speech protection only applies to the relationship between the government and the people.

Not between companies/platforms and the people.

This is wrong and big tech is de facto an arm of the state.

It’s not legally one though. The US doesn’t recognize such relationships as legally binding, except when it feels like it. Kind of like how the UK simply doesn’t disclose the nature of the crown’s internal decisionmaking if it doesn’t have to.

[Magma Dragoon]

引用自 Dom：

https://www.carnegielibrary.org/the-first-amendment-and-censorship/
The First Amendment only protects your speech from government censorship. It applies to federal, state, and local government actors.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/First-Amendment
The First Amendment, however, applies only to restrictions imposed by the government, since the First and Fourteenth amendments refer only to government ...

Uh, Zuck Faceberg just said on Rogan he regularly bans people and suppresses news when the FBI tells him to. Twitter does the same thing with various levels of government.

[Pierce Dalton]

There's no such thing as censorship inside someone's house, its owner makes the rules. You don't like them, you don't go inside. If you're inside already, then you leave.

[Amuro0079]

引用自 Pierce Dalton：

There's no such thing as censorship inside someone's house, its owner makes the rules. You don't like them, you don't go inside. If you're inside already, then you leave.

But you don't know if there's embedded government agents there at youtube, facebook, etc, pulling the strings though.

[Dom]

引用自 Magma Dragoon：

引用自 Dom：

https://www.carnegielibrary.org/the-first-amendment-and-censorship/
The First Amendment only protects your speech from government censorship. It applies to federal, state, and local government actors.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/First-Amendment
The First Amendment, however, applies only to restrictions imposed by the government, since the First and Fourteenth amendments refer only to government ...

Uh, Zuck Faceberg just said on Rogan he regularly bans people and suppresses news when the FBI tells him to. Twitter does the same thing with various levels of government.

That's because big tech can ban and suppress news.
But government entities cannot do the same thing themselves.
That's why you have lots of conspiracy theory alternative news sites out there on the internet. The government itself cannot do anything about them. Such operators are booted off the social media though.

[lee_bobbins]

When I post the following link on Youtube, which is a link to an offocial youtube Support detailing what you are not allowed to talk about the covid vaccine, youtube has an auto script which removes the link.

You can't even show people how bad their "censorship" is! And really it's worse than censorship, they tell you what you MUST say, so it's compelled speech.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9891785

[Pierce Dalton]

引用自 Amuro0079：

引用自 Pierce Dalton：

There's no such thing as censorship inside someone's house, its owner makes the rules. You don't like them, you don't go inside. If you're inside already, then you leave.

But you don't know if there's embedded government agents there at youtube, facebook, etc, pulling the strings though.

Well, people that believe this and are against it should use another platform, why would you go inside your enemy's house?

Parler is a thing, for example.

[Entity]

They’ll censor people, but leave the spambots up who post the same exact posts with links to porn.

[lee_bobbins]

this guy Dr. John has been painstakingly going through all the data since the pandemic began, used to be very pro-vaccine but lately has been posting very disturbing data about the extremely high death rate of vaxxed young people who keep dropping dead from non-covid issues.

But he has to be sooooo careful in what he says and how he says it. The whole thing is massively disturbing. People in the comments can't talk freely either, I come back to his video hours after first posting it, and half the comments have been removed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WZHtxGF4Cc

Okay, if owners of social media get to do whatever they like as far as censorship goes, and many of those owners appear to be compelled by official authorities, then where is the average person supposed to go if we want to chat freely??? Kiwi farms has been taken down and really i suspect the trans-stupid threats were just an excuse, because so many new doctors and other researchers were starting to gather there, cos it was the only place they could discuss covid freely.

According to researchers who can speak freely, that clot shot has killed more young people than the number of grannies it claimed to save. And they have evidence!! Don't you want to know about this, don't you want researchers to freely investigate?

[Entity]

引用自 Dom：

There are countless court rulings on this. First Amendment and Free Speech protection only applies to the relationship between the government and the people.

Not between companies/platforms and the people.

There is evidence that Facebook and the White House were in direct communication to have them censor accounts. The US government is directly involved with it.