The letter N? So now they are Chia?

The Chiese goverment is uts.

 

college must be so easy today -- unless youre white.





how is it that every college student, pack up their bags, goes off to community college and is suddenly a SJW who hates white people? how are they such sheep/clones? are schools that bad anymore? I guess I can answer my own question by just remembering that elementary school kids protested the election results, kids need to play more video games and stop listening to their liberal teachers.

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center is assisting YouTube in flagging content on the platform, an insider has reported.

The SPLC is a body of unelected, unregulated, hard-left lawyers regularly criticized for labeling harmless conservative organizations as “hate groups.”

The Montgomery-based, non-profit smear center has a $300 million endowment, with companies like Apple and JP MorganChase giving millions since the election of Donald Trump.

YouTube has implemented a “Trusted Flaggers” program, and selected the SPLC as one of the over 100 nongovernment organizations, or NGOs, and government agencies to monitor content, a source told the Daily Caller.

The SPLC and other selected agencies patrol the platform seeking what they determine to be extremist content ranging from “hate speech,” to terrorist recruitment videos. What ends up on the chopping block–demonetized, reported to police, or flagged –is up to the agencies YouTube has selected.

A representative for Google, the parent company of YouTube, previously stated that all contractors sign confidentiality agreements. The Anti-Defamation League and the European organization ‘No Hate Speech’ have gone public with their work for the “Trusted Flaggers” program. The majority of groups charged with flagging content are still unknown due to the confidentiality agreements.

The SPLC to monitoring content for acceptability is likely to create concern in the fairness that conservatives receive on the platform. The self appointed watchdog group has a pattern of smearing run-of-the-mill conservative organizations and personalities as “hate groups” or propagators of “general hate.”



SPLC believed the Tea Party movement, which lobbied for smaller government in 2010, was an “extremist” group. It even once labeled an as a “hate group” because a handful of alt-right members once met at a restaurant there.

In 2012 a man entered the Family Research Council firing a gun. Floyd Lee Corkins said he chose the pro-life/traditional marriage lobbying organization as a target because SPLC listed them as a hate group.

Others like Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson, and Somali author Ayaan Hirsi Ali who escaped a fatwa after having her genitals mutilated, are labeled “extremists” according to the SPLC.

This past week lifelong feminist scholar, Christina Hoff Sommers, was penciled onto their hate list as well.

Google’s increased regulation of content, and the “Trusted Flaggers” program, has ballooned since 2012, when it first began. In 2017, 50 additional flaggers were added, now totaling 113. YouTube’s public policy director Juniper Downs told a senate committee this January that YouTube would exercise firmer control over the content on its platform.

Downs said the independent groups would be contracted to halt the spread of “extremist propaganda.”

The “Trusted Flaggers” use digital tools to mass flag what they deem to be objectionable content which is then reviewed by YouTube staff. They also assist in designing algorithms that may automatically flag posts.

A YouTube spokesman said, “We work with over 100 organizations as part of our Trusted Flagger program and we value the expertise these organizations bring to flagging content for review. All trusted flaggers attend a YouTube training to learn about our policies and enforcement processes.

“Videos flagged by trusted flaggers are reviewed by YouTube content moderators according to YouTube’s Community Guidelines. Content flagged by trusted flaggers is not automatically removed or subject to any differential policies than content flagged from other users.”

The spokesperson would not confirm if SPLC is one of those groups.

On Google and YouTube, most flagging is done by algorithms. Algorithms allow people monitoring the platform to deny having a motive like political bias. But such algorithms are still designed by people who may have a bias with the SPLC being a big red flag as to one of those groups with strong bias.

Emily Jashinsky of the Washington Examiner wrote last year, “the SPLC’s claim to objectivity is nothing less than fraudulent, a reality that informed observers of its practices from both the Left and Right accept.”

“The routine of debunking their supposedly objective classifications occurs like clockwork each time a major outlet makes the mistake of turning to them when reporting on the many conservative thinkers and nonprofits the group absurdly designates as hateful.”

Conservatives have been increasingly up in arms about YouTube de-platform them. Conservative educational site PragerU filed a lawsuit against Google last year for incorrectly flagging simple teaching videos as “inappropriate” for young audiences.

This week YouTube slapped popular host Alex Jones and others who questioned the anti-gun arguments of the student-activists from Parkland with flags and strikes against their account. And yesterday, YouTuber Andrew Warski was suspended for 90 days from livestream on the account. His channel hosts political debates from across the spectrum.

Another tactic YouTube has been accused of is demonetizing conservative content with a high yield of views, like the pro-Trump commentators Diamond & Silk.



Several popular right wing shows are still unavailable in restricted mode, which makes them unavailable to those under 18, or in public buildings or schools, regardless of being FCC compliant. Leftist shows, such as the Young Turks, make no such regard for language or adult content and may be viewed by anyone.

Pawl Bazile is a journalist and the Production Director for Proud Boy Magazine. Follow him on Twitter @PawlBazile

 

TL;DR: A company gets to decide for itself how it will regulate the content which it chooses to publish, without government interference.

I seem to recall there being something in the Bill of Rights about this...

 

I've learned that whenever I see "SPLC" quoted, I am reading useless drivel that ought to be burned from existence, and my time would be better spent sticking my dick down a meat grinder. This holds true 100% of the time unless what I am reading is using the reference to "SPLC" as a way to trash "SPLC", in which case I have to evaluate whatever it is I'm reading based on the merits of its content.

 

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything in the article suggesting that Youtube was violating anyone's 1st Amendment rights. Just another private citizen speaking out about why they believe that company's policies are unfair or poorly administered.

Pretty sure that's covered by the 1st Amendment, too.

 

That was kinda the point.

The original post insinuated that YouTube was acting unfairly in some way.

My response clarified that YouTube, along with literally every other media company in the US, has a constitutionally-guaranteed liberty to decide for itself what content it will publish, and how it will make decisions related to same. It is a fundamental principle that the same rights afforded to media agencies publishing content which is favorable to one school of thought also extend to those agencies publishing content which is opposed to that school of thought, or objectively neutral.

 

Okay? I feel like you're trying to make a point here, but clearly I'm missing it.

There's no irony or hypocrisy or inconsistency in this case (as far as I can tell). I can believe a company's policy is unfair without also believing it's unconstitutional, and writing an article describing why I believe the company's policy is unfair is an entirely reasonable and lawful response.

 

I think Joe's point is; in the case of a company, you can leave your 1st amendment rights at the door [or in this case, the keyboard]. They get to say what or who gets posted or displayed. If someone doesn't like it they can choose to go away or STFU. The groups Google has chosen to work with is entirely their choice.

The First Amendment doesn't guarantee you the rights you think it does

You can believe it but it doesn't matter as long as your civil rights aren't affected.

 

i was just pointing out that the left ruins everything; that's why i posted in wuss.

 

 

To my mind, the greater issue is that these major social media sites have attained such enormous exposure and market share, to the point that they are ubiquitous. If you don't like what they are saying, you certainly can take your message elsewhere, but the chances of it being found/heard there are growing slimmer every day.

 

You're correct, the article doesn't say that.
If you read the posts, I don't think anyone was objecting to anything. Joe's post was merely stating it's Google/YouTube whoever's right to do whatever and the writer of the article Brain copied/pasted without commenting missed that either unintentionally or intentionally. Neither he nor I was objecting to the article per se.

OK?

 

How can you claim the writer missed that point, when it's not germane to the argument? There's hardly an opinion expressed in that article at all, it's simply reporting that the SPLC is purportedly among those "flaggers" used by YouTube, and that this is likely to feed more complaints of unfair treatment by politically conservative groups. No argument regarding the legality or constitutionality of YouTube's position was even offered.

 

Agreed.

The Bill of Rights mostly limits the powers of the government, not those of individuals or businesses.




Agreed.

This is kind of fundamental to the concept of a free-market economy.





Disagreed.

The argument quoted commits one of the most basic fallacies of criticism of speech in the US. It presupposes (without explicitly stating) that the protections afforded speech against interference by the government somehow constitute a de-facto standard of fairness / objectivity in speech against which the government has sought no recourse.

Or, put more simply, a lot of people seem to confuse the Constitutionally protected right to Free Speech as also applying to corporations and private companies, when in reality, the First Amendment was specifically intended to protect those very same corporations and private companies.





Context matters. This includes the presupposition of a comprehension of the mindset of those voicing the argument in question.

 

Because the headline of the article, if you took the time to go find it and read it, says which makes it germane to the argument. He does not mention once in his article that it's perfectly within the right of the platform to make whatever deletion it wants including "censoring" as he puts it regardless of how one or another group views it.

But, you win.

 

Also remeber zuck was very against repealing net neutrality because quote they value a free and open internet. Meanwhile they censor viewpoints they don't agree with.

 

I doubt he cares much of the irony in that. But your correct. And his comany has that right,

 

If your position is that this fallacious argument is not actually stated in the article, but that a rebuttal to it is an effective response to the original author, because we can assume that's what he really meant...well, I guess I don't have a reasonable response to that.

If the writer ever once even suggested in the mildest form that YouTube's actions were unconstitutional, or that conservative YouTubers' 1st Amendment rights were being violated, or that the government should take some action to enforce some standard of fairness with respect to YouTube censorship, I'd be right there with you, 100%. But it's just not in the article. You're reading into it the argument you expected to hear.

How exactly does that headline change the content of the article? It's a perfectly accurate descriptive title (setting aside whether the SPLC is a "smear machine", and, of course, whether they actually are a YouTube flagger).

That is precisely what YouTube flaggers do -- they examine YouTube content, and with the authority given to them by Google, suppress the parts of it they deem unacceptable. Censorship is not an action restricted to government actors, nor is the 1st Amendment the only possible context for censorship issues.

 

With the notable exception of when exercising a first amendment right involves refusing to serve members of "protected" classes (Commerce Clause).