Can someone help me to understand, is youtube censoring discussion of females in comments?

"

Morkonan wrote:

Google could ban you from "everything google" if it felt like it. You could get all your comments anywhere on teh interwebz removed from all google searches, which would leave only Bing and a couple of wacked-up search engines able to retrieve your posts.

Yes, of course. But i can't pretend to argue from that because then there would be no difference between right and wrong. I'm speaking from a human-rights perspective of freedom of speech - even though it is true that any privately owned whatever can just decided to censor anything they want even if it was "hey i love red apples".

And i have faith that in time - the societal perspective will become that these essential to modern-life digital platforms must also adhere to freedom of speech and other western principles.

I would not even be surprised if it was decided at a goverment level that freedom of speech must be adhered to for the simple reason that the consequences of being shut of of some of the central-platforms can be devastating to many with certain lifestyles that depend on it. Therefore it's not right if someone shut down an opinion(not hatespeech or other crap) - just because they don't feel it's one they like. There have been people losing their whole income and careers because of some silly person who's decided they know better. Or shut out of social circles and life.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

It's been over a year since YouTube was caught editing comments and chat in real time. Someone working at YT monitoring things doesn't like your perspective.

It doesn't stop at forums and chats, there have been cases where people's text messages to friends and family have been edited or blocked.

That explains a lot.

---


As for the everyone else insinuating bad things about me, check yourself - think me an idiot all you like. One day you might learn not to let emotions cloud your judgement.

Like you really, really have no idea what you are talking about. You have no idea the amount of stories of men being threated like shit and everything they say ignored and ridiculed, by women who think it's their right to shit on men because they aren't strong or have problems.

I see that, it's not a complicated issue to me. And when i see a troll knee-jerking like that, i call them out on it. Men, women, whoever. They don't have to marry that guy that they don't respect, but they don't have a right to shit all over them like its their prerogative.

You guys just really don't have a clue where these things originate from, and yet judge like you know anything. But i see, and i act on what most don't see. That gets me misunderstood, and so be it. Not worth to pretend to be blind so people don't get mad.

That's why so many people misunderstand me, because i see peoples actions as steps in a larger picture, i see what tendency they are part of beyond just the specific case, and i call it on them and respect them accordingly and they are so blinded by the small case they don't see the real thing they are actually doing. And most people are like this, the smarter they get the more they understand. But it will always be people who don't think in truths. And i'm afraid you just won't ever understand me because you can't see what i see, so you don't understand where i am coming from. Luckily there are also many who are interested in really understanding what is going on.

It kinda bugs me people always think this about me online but, hey i learned to accept it years ago. Ironically in real life i always end up finding good women who completely defy all the online stereotyping of women. For example they prefer kind and good men, and they love if i show emotion - and they never appear conserned with money. Just to name a few. Same with friends of all sexes. So you fools really don't get anything right about me - you just can't handle the truth. And it won't stop me from defending good people attacked by toxic trolls. Even if it's a women, or it goes against current society belief. I mean, i know some of you came in mad only from reading the title. "discussion of females" - triggered.

I always rather feared that when i pick up knowledge from the dark side of the gender talks - that i would bring it into my real life relationships and pollute them with doubt - but so far i believe i have steered quite clear as they keep proving it wrong. Though knowledge is a double-edged sword. Love is an illusion, but a good one and if you stop believing in it you will only see animal nature and that's just too sad - but if you really want to understand you really can boil things down to animal nature.

"

Morkonan wrote:

For that reason, we have to support Youtube and other privately owned companies for their choices in controlling "speech" on their privately owned sits. It may sometimes not suit what we may want to see discussed, but by protecting their private interests we also protect our own. We, because of that protection, can create our own website where we can have open discussions about whatever topics we wish. (Of course, if such things are illegal in our country, that could complicate the whole "free speech" as a Human Right thing. :))

I generally liked your full post, but i don't agree on all aspects.

Inviting the goverment in, doesn't mean giving the goverment control. It means for example legislation where appeals can be allowed to be made against punishments dealt by coorporations who are central to modern-lifestyle. These appeals would have to adhere to law protecting the rights of the individuals. That can be done and has nothing to do with allowing the goverment to sensor what is being reported - it only allows appeals for those who are unjustly censored. In my case i wouldn't really fall under this coz while my comment was removed, my account has never been penalized in a way that i suffer from.

It is a real problem, i repeat this again - careers can be ruined, people can be shut out of social life and circles even kids. It can have a severe impact on them. That's why all the talk has been there about if coorporations become so large that you essentially need them to live a normal life - that they can't just be allowed to shut people out at a whim but should answer to law that protects the inviduals rights.

It's very closely related to the type of law explained here:
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance
"The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin."
Which in this case boils down to something like allowing general rules against hatespeak and off-topic comments (general rules that apply to everyone). Hatespeak would have to have a legal definition. It's a new age, and all the online is not covered by law the way the old world is - and that brings many inherent weaknesses. Stores for example can essentially kick you out if they don't like your personality- but that does not have the consequences that being shut out of for example facebook, google or youtube does because you can't just go into another store to get the same or close enough to it. And as far as i know the main places are not losing their footing looking into the near future. The secondary sites generally just don't offer services or access of the same level - its not just something you decide if the culture sticks to facebook you can go on myspace all you want and you will still be shut out. Unfortunately it will probably be impossible practically legislate it - and it will have to be a pressure from society for them not to abuse their power.

Second, we must never see things so black and white that we braindead support youtube in whatever they do. It is very healthy to have a discussion about how far they should go, what is right and wrong.

Pardon... I'm answering a long post with one that's probably longer. :) But, my heart is in the right place - I'm not just blathering on to use up everyone else's internet ink. It's an important subject as well as an unfortunate symptom of issues we, ourselves, have created. As my ex-wife used to say, "The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions." :)

"

Crackmonster wrote:

...
And i have faith that in time - the societal perspective will become that these essential to modern-life digital platforms must also adhere to freedom of speech and other western principles...

This is a very dangerous point of view if one values concepts like "Freedom of Speech."

Individual personal liberty is not an evolutionary concept. A human society can survive, carrying along its cultural traditions of restricting personal liberty, just fine...

Freedom isn't "free." You have to constantly support and strengthen such principles. Idleness will not result in "personal liberty" magically evolving throughout the world's cultures.

To that effect, the idea of Freedom of Speech as it applies to all of us has to also include "Freedom from speech." We can't force anyone to accept any Speech purely based upon the fact it was given "freely." Strengthening an individual's right to choose what they will listen to as well as what they can say, themselves, is an inseparable component of the concept of "Freedom of Speech."

We can't prevent someone, for instance, for inadvertently coming across speech they don't want to hear, but we can ensure them the right that they can choose to listen to it or not, even to the point where they can't be forced to support speech or ideas they don't want to support.

"

I would not even be surprised if it was decided at a government level that freedom of speech must be adhered to for the simple reason that the consequences of being shut of of some of the central-platforms can be devastating to many with certain lifestyles that depend on it. Therefore it's not right if someone shut down an opinion(not hatespeech or other crap) - just because they don't feel it's one they like. There have been people losing their whole income and careers because of some silly person who's decided they know better. Or shut out of social circles and life.

Mixing such a strong concept of government control into the mix of one's social life is... again, dangerous.

Choice - It's key to the concept of personal liberty as well as Freedom of Speech.

"

...Like you really, really have no idea what you are talking about...
You guys just really don't have a clue where these things originate from, and yet judge like you know anything. But i see, and i act on what most don't see. That gets me misunderstood, and so be it. Not worth to pretend to be blind so people don't get mad.

That's why so many people misunderstand me, because i see peoples actions as steps in a larger picture, i see what tendency they are part of beyond just the specific case, and i call it on them and respect them accordingly and they are so blinded by the small case they don't see the real thing they are actually doing. And most people are like this, the smarter they get the more they understand. But it will always be people who don't think in truths. And i'm afraid you just won't ever understand me because you can't see what i see, so you don't understand where i am coming from. Luckily there are also many who are interested in really understanding what is going on.

Stop.

Stop for a second and look at what you're writing, here.

You're basing you comments on what "you" see, what "you" experience, and from the point of view of a privileged position that "nobody else can understand."

It's as if you're the first human being on the planet to ever have experiences and is the only one that could possible see the truth and make sense of them...

This is a very clouded, very juvenile, point of view. Yes, "juvenile" because it is very typical of juveniles to see their own experiences, the first of which they have ever had in their entire lives up to that point, as being entirely "unique" experiences that "nobody else can understand."

That is not "reality" and that means it's a... problem. You do not have a privileged, singular, experience of the entire universe of human behavior. You're simply experiencing something that it's not likely you've ever encountered before, that's all. And, not having a lot of experience with "new things" you're finding it difficult to understand and to deal with. (IMO)

"

...So you fools really don't get anything right about me

You're claiming you are unique and that your life and experiences are so very extraordinary that all other human beings are "fools" and couldn't possibly understand the great wonderful thing that is "you?"

"Conceited" doesn't even begin to explain such an attitude.

"

- you just can't handle the truth

Considering the above remarks, I am credulous that you could understand "truth" as it's very apparent you could not be capable of making reasonable judgements about things you may not already agree with... If it conflicts with your own world view, you must believe it is false and can not possibly make an assumption that your world-view may be, instead, false itself.

. And it won't stop me from defending good people attacked by toxic trolls. Even if it's a women, or it goes against current society belief. I mean, i know some of you came in mad only from reading the title. "discussion of females" - triggered.

"

I always rather feared that when i pick up knowledge from the dark side of the gender talks - that i would bring it into my real life relationships and pollute them with doubt - but so far i believe i have steered quite clear as they keep proving it wrong. Though knowledge is a double-edged sword. Love is an illusion, but a good one and if you stop believing in it you will only see animal nature and that's just too sad - but if you really want to understand you really can boil things down to animal nature.

The above is adolescent philosophical gobbity-gook... It says nothing, but insists it be interpreted as "truth." Nothing within it is explained and it's all imagery and alliteration, typical of the most popular tripe dumped on web-forums around the 'net so people can believe they are prophets and sages.

The reality is that the above statement could be redefined, the meaning of things like "knowledge" and "illusion" and "belief" and "animal nature" being redefined how ever one wished, yet still saying the same exact thing. Why? Because it's a worthless statement.

"

...I generally liked your full post, but i don't agree on all aspects...

The only reason I would engage with anyone online about such issues is in the hope that they present a contrasting point of view. So, thank you for not agreeing in full with what I wrote. :)

Here's some "wisdom." ;)

An unchallenged opinion is a worthless opinion.

So, above, where you refuse challenge because everyone else is a "fool" and "nobody could possibly know what it "you"" and that you're the final arbiter of "truth" is a concept that flies in the face of reason. In fact, it's a mindset that is incompatible for anyone to hold who is actually trying to seek some form of "truth."

For any worthy idea, any worthwhile belief, any opinion you may have, if you are not actively challenging them and learning from such challenges... they're all worthless. If you don't actively question yourself and what you believe is "truth" you will never, ever, find any of it.

Questioning yourself is uncomfortable. Human beings like stability and predictability. If you are forced to accept that neither stability nor predictability are states of matter that are always desirable, you'll always be uncertain, anxious, an unprepared to question the world around you and your own judgement.

But, of course, you will be supremely confident that the reverse is true and that you are implacable, stable, and of necessity... always right.

"

Inviting the goverment in, doesn't mean giving the goverment control. It means for example legislation where appeals can be allowed to be made against punishments dealt by coorporations who are central to modern-lifestyle. These appeals would have to adhere to law protecting the rights of the individuals. That can be done and has nothing to do with allowing the goverment to sensor what is being reported - it only allows appeals for those who are unjustly censored. In my case i wouldn't really fall under this coz while my comment was removed, my account has never been penalized in a way that i suffer from.

This is an opinion based on your experience, alone.

You, if you value your own freedom of speech, can not demand another human being listen to it if they don't wish to.

You can't.

You can, however, demand that a government listen to it and can demand that the government can not stop you from giving your opinion. Wny? Because the government must recognize that such freedom is a human right that can not be abridged or separated from the state of being "human." Of course, within reason - You can't shout fire in a crowded theater just because you feel like it.

"

...That's why all the talk has been there about if coorporations become so large that you essentially need them to live a normal life - that they can't just be allowed to shut people out at a whim but should answer to law that protects the inviduals rights...

No.

I don't "Twitter," don't "Facebook," don't do anything with Youtube other than watch some vids, now and then, and don't give two squishy farts about "social media."

IF it was as pervasive as you insist, surely my life would be very different? But, it isn't... Therefore, either I am lying or you are very mistaken about the personal, direct, impact that social media has on my daily life.

However, there is a very large influence of social media on... social media and far too many people engage it who are truly not well prepared to deal with its effects.

That does have an influence on my personal life. "Social Media" does spill over into things that could effect me, like politics and policy decisions as well as some standards that some business want to push on consumers, like "you can only order from the online app" or "only smartphone users can access these services" and the like.

But, personally? I couldn't care less about the wasteland that is "pop-social media." I do care about its harmful effects as demonstrated right here in this thread.

"

...Hatespeak would have to have a legal definition. It's a new age, and all the online is not covered by law the way the old world is - and that brings many inherent weaknesses.

And, now we see the poison.

The issue is not "hate-speech" but, instead, your desire to label something "hate-speech."

And, forgive me, but this is a phenomenon that is nearly exclusive among adolescents. (Up to one's early 20's.) It's also, IMO, something easily addicted to by those who may seek sanctuary among online social groups of what they interpret as their "peers."

I would think, and I'm making an assumption here, that you see a great many things in your experience that are, for lack of a better word, "outrages" that demand a "righteous crusade" to fight against them.

It's not necessarily that they are truly unjust and outrageous. Instead, it's your need to find a "righteous crusade" to fight that's the problem.

"

Stores for example can essentially kick you out if they don't like your personality- but that does not have the consequences that being shut out of for example facebook, google or youtube does because you can't just go into another store to get the same or close enough to it.

You're talking about the concept of a "Monopoly" here.

I do everything I need to do in my life without these social media hubs. So, it's not a "monopoly" on my life experiences. Are they convenient for those who use them? Perhaps. Do those who use them always do so wisely? Nope.

"

...and you will still be shut out.

"Shut out" of what, exactly? If you've gotten the majority of your socialization needs from online experience, it's showing... You may not see it now, but I encourage you to work a bit more on introspection. Look at how you think about things and start adding up what opinions you have were formed by online experiences verses direct, "IRL", experiences. If you have more of the former than the latter... you've got issues that need to be addressed.

"

Unfortunately it will probably be impossible practically legislate it - and it will have to be a pressure from society for them not to abuse their power.

"They" will use whatever powers and abilities they are allowed to use, whether or not it is abusive. This is the nature of... stuffs in the world.

There are, of course, growing concerns with the pervasive influence of public social media. But, what should be done?

If the government can step in and say "You must stop allowing these people to talk" then they can do the same thing with the Press. Do we then ascribe a special status for news agencies? And, who decides what news agencies are worthy of this protection? And, what if those news agencies don't say things that the people in charge of licensing them don't like?

The slippery slope of government control has to be restricted. It must be. That is why even though that it was determined that there were "lies on teh interwebz" by certain highly respected government agencies, nothing "official" was done other than to act "In the National Interest" as a response to "Foreign Government Action." That's fully within the standards of National Sovereignty, respected the world over. Further independent, private, action was taken by social media sites to help stop that behavior and to "self-police" such things. Why? To prevent the negative results and... to prevent government from feeling it had to respond with direct legislation... so that the freedom to abuse the freedoms private businesses enjoy can be maintained. :)

"

Second, we must never see things so black and white that we braindead support youtube in whatever they do. It is very healthy to have a discussion about how far they should go, what is right and wrong.

It's fine to discuss such things, but to paint oneself as the final arbiter of truth, the only non-fool in existence, the only one possibly capable of understanding the confused, personal, world around them... Just no.

Arguments coming from that sort of person are not worth listening to.

If you want to try to influence opinion, you must be willing to question your own and to be willing to examine the opinions of those who may disagree with you. You must, without a doubt, be willing to accept that you may be wrong and that your opinion may not be one that is ultimately sound.

Go check out BitChute if you got a problem with youtube censoring stuff. If you prefer content that's not "politically correct" then BitChute is what you're looking for.

Trash platform like all social media. Just go for the DYI videos. like how to weld aluminum or how to be a millionaire by 30. Everything will be alright in real world where people pay for good service and products and bullshit walks to social media to whine and take Adderall to cope with fail.

Damn I shouldn't have stayed away from OT for so long, I could have answered this a lot earlier.

Yes it is extremely likely that Google is straight up fucking with your posts. They've been in 1984 mode for a while now, the first example I saw was in 2016/2017 where if you go to google.com and type 'facist' it gives you these three results in order:

"

far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

an excerpt from wikipedia

Then the miriam webster definition - no comment on the 'leftness' or 'rightness' of the system

Then the britanica definition - no comment on the 'leftness' or 'rightness' of the system

Google used to pull the webster version first...I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to decide why they might have pushed the only one of the 3 that included the term 'far right' to the top.

You can also search for James Damore "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber" (on duckduckgo of course) to read more about the current state of google.

"

Morkonan wrote:

It's fine to discuss such things, but to paint oneself as the final arbiter of truth, the only non-fool in existence, the only one possibly capable of understanding the confused, personal, world around them... Just no.

Arguments coming from that sort of person are not worth listening to.

If you want to try to influence opinion, you must be willing to question your own and to be willing to examine the opinions of those who may disagree with you. You must, without a doubt, be willing to accept that you may be wrong and that your opinion may not be one that is ultimately sound.

It is intentional. You might not realize it but it is spin-doctoring. The purpose is to manipulate the audience to buy something regardless. The spinners don’t need to bother with complex methods to cover-up deception. Outright lies and deliberate omissions is just as effective on a gullible audience or the general public.

You won't win by just by making a solid logical argument. You must know the kinds of arguments the audience will favor. “He- Who-Must-Not-Be-Named” is famously known to be using it.

I assure you I am 10 times more likely to sell ice cream and fast food to a fat person who like ice cream and fast food than for you to persuade them to eat vegatables or go on a diet. Buy my ice cream with a small mickey shaped chocolate on top. 30% off if you buy two!

It’s easier to sell ice cream. The truth doesn't taste as good.

If u r aware of the "red pill" community on YT, basically anyone in the comments has to use different words for describing women. Things like whamen, wohmen, whatever because YT instantly deletes those comments otherwise.
Those comments mostly aren't toxic or hateful, but have some words in them that could be seen negative combined with women.

In other words, yes YT uses algorithms to automaticly flag and delete comments based on word combinations.

"

Crackmonster wrote:

I can't figure out what exactly is happening and maybe you can help me understand.




[...]


Can someone explain to me what is happening here, am i missing something obvious?

"

@XXXXYou are doing exactly what is the problem. Just surpressing men, and undermining a male perspective. The only thing you entered with was to ridicule the original poster. Look at your comment that's all you did. I don't care what you tried writing after to retcon yourself that's not what you came in with that's not the emotions you reacted to when you decided to write the first post.

^This part of your post was fine and reasonable. If you said nothing else afterwards you could have opened up a discussion.

"

And this is expected female behaviour from a solid % of females - you are engineered to act that way on your emotions in seeking a better mate. But if we have no awareness and are just slaves to our impulses then you can forget all about cultural development and we should retract all female rights - i should club you and drag your unconscious body back inside my cave where i would chain you in range of the kitchen and my bed. Luckily, we are not that primitive. And you women claim to have better social awareness than men? It's about time you started showing it.

Back to the topic. Yea, so a man says anything that either incites a criticism of female behaviour or discussing problem about functioning as a male in society? Tell them to stfu, right? They should just deal with it. Pathetic they are.

No, you are. You can't even see how twisted that is. I'm sure you thought you did nothing wrong. In fact, you probably thought you were being smart and truthful. And it's always fun to ridicule someone you don't respect, amirite?

Emotions, they cloud judgement. Women have a lot of emotions.

This part comes off as antagonistic/trolling/misogynistic and doesn't really bring any value. You will win more people over by just explaining why the behavior you don't like is bad. Don't use metaphors or allegory, just explain why it's wrong and do so without blaming large groups of people. You'll be more convincing and I think your censorship issue will probably go away too. Hopefully this helped.

If your posts disappear instantly then it's certainly not someone who reviewed the post and considered it was offensive. Did you post link in your message? It may sometimes trigger a filter. Otherwise you can always disconnect from your account and check if the message is still there (sometimes you are the only one who can see a certain message that has been deleted).

like they never censor...