Google/youtube building a future of automated censorship

[realibrad]

Does anyone that has posted so far know who Jordan Peterson is?

If not you should look at some of his videos. By no means is this guy an alt right person, or spreading hate speech. He came to "internet fame" because he would not use certain gender pronouns. His argument is that if people wanted to use them they should be free too, but it should not be law to force someone to use them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson

https://www.youtube.com/user/JordanPetersonVideos

This guys is nowhere near someone like a Richard Spencer. The guy is a clinical psychologist who is currently a professor at the University of Toronto. He is not some hate speech spreader.

It is weird that google deleted his account, reviewed that action and said he had violated the TOS and would not reinstate the account. They own their stuff, but the idea that we should be happy with this type of activity is weird to say the least.

 

[sdifox]

Does anyone that has posted so far know who Jordan Peterson is?

If not you should look at some of his videos. By no means is this guy an alt right person, or spreading hate speech. He came to "internet fame" because he would not use certain gender pronouns. His argument is that if people wanted to use them they should be free too, but it should not be law to force someone to use them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson

https://www.youtube.com/user/JordanPetersonVideos

This guys is nowhere near someone like a Richard Spencer. The guy is a clinical psychologist who is currently a professor at the University of Toronto. He is not some hate speech spreader.

It is weird that google deleted his account, reviewed that action and said he had violated the TOS and would not reinstate the account. They own their stuff, but the idea that we should be happy with this type of activity is weird to say the least.

he got his account back, though I am not familiar with circumstances of how it came about

private company, they own it, they operate it.

 

[realibrad]

he got his account back, though I am not familiar with circumstances of how it came about

private company, they own it, they operate it.

They took it away, without telling him. He contacted google and asked what happened and was told he broke the TOS and would not get his account back. He reached out to the media and shortly after was given his account back. They have still not said what TOS he broke or why they gave it back after telling him they reviewed it and he would not get it back.

Agree that we are at the mercy of private companies and we cannot expect that they will let us own their property. That said, do you believe people should not dislike this type of activity by a company? I find it reasonable to not like this type of activity and I fully support people disliking this and talking about this.

 

[sdifox]

They took it away, without telling him. He contacted google and asked what happened and was told he broke the TOS and would not get his account back. He reached out to the media and shortly after was given his account back. They have still not said what TOS he broke or why they gave it back after telling him they reviewed it and he would not get it back.

Agree that we are at the mercy of private companies and we cannot expect that they will let us own their property. That said, do you believe people should not dislike this type of activity by a company? I find it reasonable to not like this type of activity and I fully support people disliking this and talking about this.

Oh you have every right to dislike the company for doing this.

 

[realibrad]

Oh you have every right to dislike the company for doing this.

So what did you mean when you said this?

"So, start your own AltRightTube? Why are you expecting a private company to subsidise your hate speech?"

Peterson is not altright. He was not promoting heat speech. So do you also disagree with youtube deleting his account if you assume the premise?

 

[sdifox]

So what did you mean when you said this?

"So, start your own AltRightTube? Why are you expecting a private company to subsidise your hate speech?"

Peterson is not altright. He was not promoting heat speech. So do you also disagree with youtube deleting his account if you assume the premise?

nope, was referring to op, not Peterson.

 

[realibrad]

nope, was referring to op, not Peterson.

There was another question there and its hard to tell if you were answer was in response to that.

Peterson is not altright. He was not promoting heat speech. So do you also disagree with youtube deleting his account if you assume the premise?

 

[sdifox]

There was another question there and its hard to tell if you were answer was in response to that.

Peterson is not altright. He was not promoting heat speech. So do you also disagree with youtube deleting his account if you assume the premise?

again, I don't know the circumstances but I probably don't agree with the deletion of his account. However, we are talking private platform so there isn't really much to get mad about.

 

[realibrad]

again, I don't know the circumstances but I probably don't agree with the deletion of his account. However, we are talking private platform so there isn't really much to get mad about.

I asked you to assume the premise. I also clearly agree about it being a private platform.

My question is if what Peterson has claimed is true, do you agree with google doing this. I fully support the right of private firms controlling their property. I would never wish the government to stop this. My question is if you feel that a company doing this rises to the level of censorship even if its completely (and rightfully) legal?

 

[soulcougher73]

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I asked you to assume the premise. I also clearly agree about it being a private platform.

My question is if what Peterson has claimed is true, do you agree with google doing this. I fully support the right of private firms controlling their property. I would never wish the government to stop this. My question is if you feel that a company doing this rises to the level of censorship even if its completely (and rightfully) legal?

Probably, but it's a private platform, they can censor whatever they wish, unless it runs afoul of discrimination within a court.

Youtube isn't a right, making your voice heard to other citizens isn't a right. Protecting your voice from censorship from the government is a right.

 

[sdifox]

I asked you to assume the premise. I also clearly agree about it being a private platform.

My question is if what Peterson has claimed is true, do you agree with google doing this. I fully support the right of private firms controlling their property. I would never wish the government to stop this. My question is if you feel that a company doing this rises to the level of censorship even if its completely (and rightfully) legal?

Censorship has been with us a long time, the TV stations self sensor a lot as well. And your understanding of Freedom of Speech differs from mine seeing how I am Canadian. Canadians accept censorship to a certain degree.

Also, it is a bit murky on whether Peterson has the right to post recorded lectures. The university may own the right thus it would constitute TOC violation.

 

[realibrad]

Probably, but it's a private platform, they can censor whatever they wish, unless it runs afoul of discrimination within a court.

Youtube isn't a right, making your voice heard to other citizens isn't a right. Protecting your voice from censorship from the government is a right.

Put aside the legal aspect because I am not saying the government should be involved. What I am saying is that when a large company does something like this I believe its bad for everyone overall. The response is not to have government do anything, but to speak out to make it known that its not okay. So the legal side should be irrelevant to what I am asking.

What I am asking is do you agree with the premise that taking away Peterson's account and claiming TOS breech when in fact it is due to them not liking the person (premise I am asking you to assume) is bad or good? We agree that its censorship and that they have a right to do so. I am asking if you think in this case it was good or bad for people.

 

[realibrad]

Censorship has been with us a long time, the TV stations self sensor a lot as well. And your understanding of Freedom of Speech differs from mine seeing how I am Canadian. Canadians accept censorship to a certain degree.

Also, it is a bit murky on whether Peterson has the right to post recorded lectures. The university may own the right thus it would constitute TOC violation.

Do you believe that in this case, assuming Peterson is telling the truth was good censorship or bad censorship?

 

[sdifox]

Do you believe that in this case, assuming Peterson is telling the truth was good censorship or bad censorship?

It's censorship, there is no good or bad attached to it. Morality is subjective, i.e. it is entirely possible for both party to be in the right. Like the recorded lecture rights ownership scenario I raised.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Put aside the legal aspect because I am not saying the government should be involved. What I am saying is that when a large company does something like this I believe its bad for everyone overall. The response is not to have government do anything, but to speak out to make it known that its not okay. So the legal side should be irrelevant to what I am asking.

What I am asking is do you agree with the premise that taking away Peterson's account and claiming TOS breech when in fact it is due to them not liking the person (premise I am asking you to assume) is bad or good? We agree that its censorship and that they have a right to do so. I am asking if you think in this case it was good or bad for people.

It's censorship, there is no good or bad attached to it. Morality is subjective, i.e. it is entirely possible for both party to be in the right. Like the recorded lecture rights ownership scenario I raised.

This. You're attempting to attach morality to a decision by, not only a company, but an automated action by an algorithm the company is running.

If people think it's right, they won't care, if they think it's wrong, they'll either not care, or vote with their wallet (or in this case, with their participation in the platform, which is the same thing).

If you feel it's wrong, by all means, speak out, but don't expect people to get a crap.

 

[realibrad]

It's censorship, there is no good or bad attached to it. Morality is subjective, i.e. it is entirely possible for both party to be in the right. Like the recorded lecture rights ownership scenario I raised.

No, morality is not subjective. Slavery was immoral and that is not subjective. People may have tried to justify it, but it was immoral 100%.

Censorship is not the same as slavery, but your argument does not follow. Censorship can be totally reasonable. If I have a guest at my house and I do not like what he is saying, I have every right to make him leave. If google does not like what Peterson is saying, they have every right to stop him from saying things on their platform. Again, we agree here and that is not what I am asking.

Do you think its a good thing for google to claim TOS breech when in fact there does not appear to be any?

 

[realibrad]

This. You're attempting to attach morality to a decision by, not only a company, but an automated action by an algorithm the company is running.

If people think it's right, they won't care, if they think it's wrong, they'll either not care, or vote with their wallet (or in this case, with their participation in the platform, which is the same thing).

If you feel it's wrong, by all means, speak out, but don't expect people to give* a crap.

Why should I not expect people to care? If I believe that a large company is trying to censor people whom I see as reasonable, why would I not speak out against it? There can be no debate if the debate is hidden from people. Google appears to have censored Peterson and then hide behind a breech of TOS. That is troubling to me because it means that reasonable speech can be removed from the most popular platform of its kind. Not attempting to get people to give a crap means that Google can continue to do this and no adjustments will be made.

 

[sdifox]

No, morality is not subjective. Slavery was immoral and that is not subjective. People may have tried to justify it, but it was immoral 100%.

Censorship is not the same as slavery, but your argument does not follow. Censorship can be totally reasonable. If I have a guest at my house and I do not like what he is saying, I have every right to make him leave. If google does not like what Peterson is saying, they have every right to stop him from saying things on their platform. Again, we agree here and that is not what I am asking.

Do you think its a good thing for google to claim TOS breech when in fact there does not appear to be any?

He posted lectures, which may be owned by the university. Thus a violation of TOS. Like I said, I don't have the details nor do I care.
Morality is entirely subjective to your upbringing. Example, pork.

Also, the slave keepers did not think of themselves as amoral, they think it was their right to own slaves, thus proving morality is subjective.

 

[realibrad]

He posted lectures, which may be owned by the university. Thus a violation of TOS. Like I said, I don't have the details nor do I care.
Morality is entirely subjective to your upbringing. Example, pork.

Perhaps you do not know what assuming the premise means. It means to assume that Peterson is telling the truth.

Further, if that were true then why would Google delete his email account and not just youtube? Further, if you were correct why would Google reinstate his youtube channel when there is copyrighted material still on the channel?

I don't see the point in random supposition.

 

[sdifox]

Perhaps you do not know what assuming the premise means. It means to assume that Peterson is telling the truth.

Further, if that were true then why would Google delete his email account and not just youtube? Further, if you were correct why would Google reinstate his youtube channel when there is copyrighted material still on the channel?

I don't see the point in random supposition.

I am not disputing Peterson is telling the truth as he sees it. He doesn't believe he violated any rules. And Google could also be right since the lecture ownership issue is murky they decided to go the safe route. Automated system doesn't do nuance.

I don't know the details, do you?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Perhaps you do not know what assuming the premise means. It means to assume that Peterson is telling the truth.

Further, if that were true then why would Google delete his email account and not just youtube? Further, if you were correct why would Google reinstate his youtube channel when there is copyrighted material still on the channel?

I don't see the point in random supposition.

Again, you're assuming it was 'wrong' to do it in the first place, and assuming that their reinstatement of the account is further proof of their wrongness.

It's just as likely an automated system yanked the account for $REASONS and they reinstated because it hit the news, and the powers that be didn't want the company to end up in hot water over it.

And yes, morality is completely subjective. Your insistence that it isn't is actually bound in Christian morality (among others) and by proxy, American morality, who's tenants includes 'spread the gospel, by fire if necessary'. One morality to rule them all.

 

[realibrad]

I am not disputing Peterson is telling the truth as he sees it. He doesn't believe he violated any rules. And Google could also be right since the lecture ownership issue is murky they decided to go the safe route. Automated system doesn't do nuance.

I don't know the details, do you?

I do not know the details, which is why I'm not purporting to know them. Speculating that it could be to copyright seems baseless. He could have uploaded child porn and google deleted his email and youtube channel. It could have been a space alien to demanded google do it. Its useless to guess without evidence.

What we do know is that google did delete the account and bring it back. There has not been any changes so why was it removed, reviewed and upheld, only to be reinstated without any changes? Why not tell him what TOS was violated?

Again, you seem to be avoiding my question.

 

[sdifox]

I do not know the details, which is why I'm not purporting to know them. Speculating that it could be to copyright seems baseless. He could have uploaded child porn and google deleted his email and youtube channel. It could have been a space alien to demanded google do it. Its useless to guess without evidence.

What we do know is that google did delete the account and bring it back. There has not been any changes so why was it removed, reviewed and upheld, only to be reinstated without any changes? Why not tell him what TOS was violated?

Again, you seem to be avoiding my question.

how am I avoiding your question? I am showing you how it could have come about. I don't know how google runs youtube, but I know most companies don't explain themselves on advice from legal council.

what question did I avoid?

Also, Peterson is raking it in online, so not exactly a penniless champion of free speech.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...nto-free-speech-crowdfunding/article35174379/

 

[realibrad]

Again, you're assuming it was 'wrong' to do it in the first place, and assuming that their reinstatement of the account is further proof of their wrongness.

It's just as likely an automated system yanked the account for $REASONS and they reinstated because it hit the news, and the powers that be didn't want the company to end up in hot water over it.

And yes, morality is completely subjective. Your insistence that it isn't is actually bound in Christian morality (among others) and by proxy, American morality, who's tenants includes 'spread the gospel, by fire if necessary'. One morality to rule them all.

Seems speculation is quite popular.

If it was automated, then why was it reviewed by a person and upheld? Why would it then be reinstated without any changes?

Ah, so morality is always subjective. As I already explained, people try to justify their actions as being moral. Spreading the gospel by fire might have support in the religion, but it is objectively immoral because it is forcing things upon people who may not want to be forced into the religion. Not all things are subjectively moral. That is a very lazy argument indeed.

If the parent of a child is okay with sexual abuse, and the abuser is okay with sexual abuse, its still immoral to sexually abuse the child.

In terms of google censorship I do believe that it was wrong because the appearance is that they censored Peterson because they did not like his speech. Speech which is not hateful but that of a different opinion. When people start censoring differences of opinion that does not inherently become immoral, but I do think that it starts people down a path that can lead to immorality. A path that so far as I can see is not productive for anyone.