YouTube shuts down H3H3's Live Stream for Talking About Alex Jones

Community Tech Policy & News
111

this is just a view into the future of what will come to all channels probs including level1techs youtube channel.
they will give whatever bullshit reason to censor and delete youtubers.

btw i’m not a fan of alex jones, but it doesn’t matter whether i am or not, his voice should be allowed to be heard.

it’s also interesting how they slowly push forward to make things harder and harder for youtubers.
the adpocalypse to severely restrict what people can say and do if they want ad money with the deletion of subscribers along the way and what not.
and now deletion of whole channels and getting rid of them from the internet and all discoverability.
youtube already changes search results in favor of the bullshit main stream media if u search for lets say a school shooting to compat “fake news”, they put all their abc, cnn and whatever other controlled media bs at the top results now.
think about the nice future of very tight auto banning algorithms that ban everything that is considered “fake news” or “conspiracy theories” basically getting rid of all non mainstream opinion and banning channels completely.

i don’t wanna live in this world, enjoy level1news as long as we can i guess :confused:
at least on youtube

2 Likes
112

So refuse to play in their sandbox. :man_shrugging:

1 Like
113

Everyone keeps spewing “free speech” and it’s completely wrong.

Free Speech only protects you from Government. Not from companies like Google/YouTube.

5 Likes
114

Or youtube is run by tards.

Sadly, youtube is just another corporate cable channel. Tha an analogy I heard on the H3 episode with bo burnham. Theres no wild west of youtube its just shitty cable like all the rest.

115

u know exactly, that discover ability is linked to the main platforms like youtube, if u’re not them u don’t exist kinda thing.
i would follow level1techs of course, but who else would and what are the chances they would grow further???
and the same applies to other channels.

how many people u know, know even what bitchute is and then compare that number to youtube…

116

youtube is the video platform of the world, it doesn’t matter if it is owned by a private company like alphabet, it needs to be open.

and actually alphabet needs to be broken up to begin with and regulations be put in place to protect the user from getting data mined.

youtube is a monopoly same as isps are a monopoly in x region, making regulation hugely important to avoid the company fucking u over.

government could interfere and tell them they are not allowed to delete channels based on nothing from youtube given their state of monopoly simple as that, BUT evil corrupt psychopathic government themselves wants to be able to delete opinions off the internet and get rid of channels etc…
so youtube and them working together against the user as is so often the case… :disappointed_relieved:

117

alphabet was formed due to google being close to a monopoly. alphabet exists because it is legal.

118

the less you care about youtube the better.

119

might as well put my little drop of opinion into this ocean of ass

–

what happened to H3H3 was definitely unfair, and most likely an algorithm issue. i’m sure that youtube won’t do anything to fix it, of course, and he’ll just have to sit out his strike for the next week or so. it’s not uncommon, plenty of people have gotten strikes from the AI for mostly harmless things, and the best course of action for them was to sit it out. it sucks, but that’s just how it is with youtube. it shouldn’t be, but it is.

as for the whole free speech angle, i absolutely think that companies, like google, should be more fair about what their service users say and do, as well as encourage people all over the political spectrum to have a platform they can speak on.

i also wish firefly was renewed, stargate universe had its third season chance, and christopher eccleston had a full three year run as the doctor, but these things aren’t likely to happen, ever.

google is a company, youtube is their product, and we are the customer. we’re subject to their whims, their rules, and their brainfuck algorithm. it’s not fair, especially to people who make a living off of it like H3H3, and in a lot of cases, and it’s not right, but that’s just how it is on the platform.

i think if it ever gets worse, and believe me, it can get worse, people will find another platform to speak on. that time, i think, just hasn’t come yet. when it does, though, expect me to be there.

122

No it is not

Unlike ISP’s, you don’t see Youtube suing other video platforms like twitch, vimeo, floatplane off of the internet because they “own the right to a specific region”

Just because they are big, it doesn’t make them a monopoly.

If YT/Alphabet doesn’t want AJ on their platform, he can go somewhere else or start his own video streaming server.

1 Like
124

given their size and usage and discover ability they are effectively a monopoly.
also in regards to quality, if u for example compare bitchute to youtube.
twitch is a streaming platform, floatplane is tiny and is paid for per user based on youtube users.
of course it’s not the exact cancer of isps, but there is still no real alternative to youtube.
and would u say the same if they delete level1techs from the platform, because of “fake news” or whatever other bullshit youtube would make up.
and as u mentioned isps and aj creating his own video streaming server.
with big companies like netflix already having to pay isps to not throttle their users, it is even more unlikely for any youtube alternative upstart to really gain momentum as isps could just shut them down of course.

125

As much as I agree with you that YT is a privately controlled platform, it’s ubiquitous nature makes it appear to most users as a public platform even though it is not.

Semi related

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-23/trump-told-by-judge-not-to-block-users-from-his-twitter-feed

126

The argument probably to make is that it’s not longer a video platform. YouTube is a curator of he videos added to their collection. If they are deciding moral guides of what does and doesn’t go on there, they go from being a platform of “we take no responsibility for what’s there” to “we take all responsibility because we curate all videos here”.

They are perfectly in their right to do so, but I changes what they are, and the question should be, should they? Probably not.

1 Like
127

But this is as a representative of the government, so I think the comparison is tenuous at best.

And it is Trump that is being restrained, not Twitter.

128

This is the only argument I can support. Youtube is free to do what it wants as it’s a private company. Youtube’s actions are not free from consequences though.

An equivalence I’ve seen is backpage. Youtube doesn’t want to go the way of backpage.

129

It doesn’t seem like that similar a situation though. If Wikipedia is correct, Backpage deliberately tried to obscure things.

My suggestions is YouTube could do nothing. Don’t promote or hide anything artificially, allow advertisers to choose who they want to advertise on, and follow the law. If they law says remove a video, remove it, if not, do nothing, simply take no side.

130

Not too knowledgeable on the situation, but my understanding was that there was a new law passed that made the curator/hoster/platform liable for what’s on there. Don’t tell me there’s nothing dmca’d or otherwise illegal on YouTube…

If YouTube becomes responsible, they can no longer claim innocence for every dmca letter/lawsuit they get.

3 Likes
131

See, this sort of thing makes me think that maybe Alex Jones is perhaps actually speaking at least some truth.

If he was just a fruit-loop with no real content i doubt that youtube, etc. would be so worried about it.

132

You are conflating freedom of speech, a principle that all should have the right to express their voice and that others should have the right to listen, with the first amendment which is a legal construct stating that the government cannot create laws the infringes on the principle of free speech.

Additionally, these companies receive enough subsidies from the government that it’s a moot point anyway.

Could the argument be made then that twitter cannot ban people because doing so restricts them from interacting with President Trump? It’s essentially the same premise.

134

The dangerous part is finding out what’s true.

Are globalists trying to censor conservatives? Obviously. This thread is essentially proving it. Although, I’m not sure that it can provably be limited to conservatives. Anyone who disagrees with the platform’s ideology can be censored.

Are they dumping chemicals in the water that is turning the frogs gay? Not really. I mean, they are dumping chemicals, but it’s turning male frogs female.

I’m not touching anything else with a 39.5 foot pole.

Only for provably American citizens, but theoretically, yes.

I agree with you here, but I’d like to posit a question for everyone:

What happens when a company has more control over silencing opposition than a government. In the 50s, if you wanted to spread your message, you went to the town square with a bullhorn. Today, you take to facebook because no one is in the town square anymore.

I’m just concerned that these media agencies are truly and identifiably evil and making them the sole arbiter of public discourse is dangerous without legal protections of the people.

1 Like