More YouTube Biased Censorship

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Official YouTube Blog: Our ongoing work to tackle hate

Google has initiated a furtherance of its ongoing policy of censoring and banning conservative and Christian content on its YouTube streaming service.

YouTube’s official blog states it is prohibiting “videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status.”

Of course their so called "hate speech" policy is partly guided by false presumptions pertaining to truth claims and competing worldviews. Such a broad outline is very subjective, and unless conservatives and Christians get serious in their prayers concerning a change in the Google’s leadership--as well as in its rank and file-- its employees will, in practice, interpret this in their usual biased fashion.

I would ask praying Christians everywhere to pray for a change in the leadership at Google/YouTube (and at other social media companies), and that any of its attempts to oppose the Christian worldview and agenda is disrupted and ultimately brought to absolutely nothing.

Edit: The Youtube blog apparently uses the words "group" and "ideology" interchangeably.

The bible is considered hate speech by many people. Everyone hates stuff. God hates stuff. The devil hates stuff.


Pr 8:13 - The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.

Ps 97:10 - Ye that love the LORD, hate evil:

The voices and arms of hell hate God's people, and call anything they say or God says hateful. At the same time, those of us who are alive and not dead can see that at the same time they promote hate against the unborn, and murders, and adulteries, and Sodomy, and all that is vile dark and wicked. Basically, any voice that does not support these sorts of evil are considered hateful! Only one side gonna win here.

The bible indicates mass murder of God's people in the very end. Mass martyrdom. Then, the tide turns and swift and total vengeance of God ensues, leaving the winning side to be those enemies of google! .
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FutureAndAHope

Just me
Supporter
Aug 30, 2008
6,362
2,910
Australia
Visit site
✟732,859.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Official YouTube Blog: Our ongoing work to tackle hate

Google has initiated a furtherance of its ongoing policy of censoring and banning conservative and Christian content on its YouTube streaming service.

YouTube’s official blog states it is prohibiting “videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status.”

Of course their so called "hate speech" policy is partly guided by false presumptions pertaining to truth claims and competing worldviews. Such a broad outline is very subjective, and unless conservatives and Christians get serious in their prayers concerning a change in the Google’s leadership--as well as in its rank and file-- its employees will, in practice, interpret this in their usual biased fashion.

I would ask praying Christians everywhere to pray for a change in the leadership at Google/YouTube (and at other social media companies), and that any of its attempts to oppose the Christian worldview and agenda is disrupted and ultimately brought to absolutely nothing.

Edit: The Youtube blog apparently uses the words "group" and "ideology" interchangeably.
Will pray with you about this... thanks for the info
 
  • Like
Reactions: AACJ
Upvote 0

Zanting

not so new
Mar 15, 2012
2,366
464
✟47,296.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Nope. Only hateful rhetoric is banned.

Unfortunately youtube is already engaging in subtle censorship of christian channels who also happen to support the POTUS.
Their claim that it's only "hateful rhetoric" that will be banned is already false considering they will demonitize these channels, they will unsubscribe you, and stop notifications of new content of channels that promote christian conservative views....not "hateful rhetoric".

Of course, if you don't follow any of those channels, you wouldn't know about these subtle censoring tactics. Nothing new there, but by coincidence this is announced after media sources such as CNN have experienced huge drops in their ratings.



I find that very interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AACJ
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,024
3,750
✟287,812.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Two things don’t need to be exactly alike to be in the same category.

I do not find CF’s rules clear and your example of not promoting [hatred against] LBGT is ironic to say the least.

Anyone who has a problem with YouTube censorship should have a problem with CF censorship. If you don’t like the rules on YouTube, create your own video sharing site. I’m sure the white supremecists and gay-bashers will flock to it.
I don't actually agree with all of CF's rules personally, though I try to abide by them. Admitting there are some times where I've received warnings. Yet the comparison doesn't seem at all appropriate. Forums in nature have limited scopes and there are different forums to cater to different crowds. Each of these has their rules in place which you agree to when entering. I've agreed to CF's rules. But YouTube is something different, it is ostensibly a platform for people to earn a living on and posting creative content.

I also question your contention that a start up would even be allowed to be an alternative to Youtube these days given that we've seen even payment processors have gotten into the game of determining who and who cannot have an account or do business through them. Gab tried be a more open version of twitter and their bank stopped doing business with them. Google and Firefox blocked Dissenter.

So this sort of comment seems like a pointless challenge. You know they can't win and if they do it will be due to the incompetence from the giants. I personally hope a Youtube competitor comes about and gives them something to think about, though I'm not thinking that's going to happen. Youtube and other silicon valley giants will do whatever they want to maintain the current monopoly they have. My only gripe with them is that they are effectively a publisher. Let them admit it. Let them say on liberal orientated content or neutral content can earn a living on Youtube. Of course they won't because they want to pretend that they are open to conservatives.

By the way, not everyone on the right is white Supremecist or bashes gays.
 
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,483
62
✟570,626.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Official YouTube Blog: Our ongoing work to tackle hate

Google has initiated a furtherance of its ongoing policy of censoring and banning conservative and Christian content on its YouTube streaming service.

YouTube’s official blog states it is prohibiting “videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status.”

Of course their so called "hate speech" policy is partly guided by false presumptions pertaining to truth claims and competing worldviews. Such a broad outline is very subjective, and unless conservatives and Christians get serious in their prayers concerning a change in the Google’s leadership--as well as in its rank and file-- its employees will, in practice, interpret this in their usual biased fashion.

I would ask praying Christians everywhere to pray for a change in the leadership at Google/YouTube (and at other social media companies), and that any of its attempts to oppose the Christian worldview and agenda is disrupted and ultimately brought to absolutely nothing.

Edit: The Youtube blog apparently uses the words "group" and "ideology" interchangeably.
If you want to see the slippery slope that this is leading to... an example is in Ontario, near my home, there is a summer camp for kids. It is a Christian camp and holds to Christian values. However, it has been removed from "charitable donation" status because it will not tick the box, on the form that says it agrees with abortion, same sex marriage and other social ideals..

It's a kids camp for crying out loud... a Christian one.. .that cannot teach Christian values....

That is the censorship that is going to happen... Only Christians are fair game for discrimination.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: antiquarian
Upvote 0

Jermayn

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2019
931
491
Northwest Florida
✟105,888.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Google has initiated a furtherance of its ongoing policy of censoring and banning conservative and Christian content on its YouTube streaming service.

YouTube’s official blog states it is prohibiting “videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status.”

Of course their so called "hate speech" policy is partly guided by false presumptions pertaining to truth claims and competing worldviews. Such a broad outline is very subjective, and unless conservatives and Christians get serious in their prayers concerning a change in the Google’s leadership--as well as in its rank and file-- its employees will, in practice, interpret this in their usual biased fashion.

I would ask praying Christians everywhere to pray for a change in the leadership at Google/YouTube (and at other social media companies), and that any of its attempts to oppose the Christian worldview and agenda is disrupted and ultimately brought to absolutely nothing.

Edit: The Youtube blog apparently uses the words "group" and "ideology" interchangeably.
As you can tell by many of the posts on this thread, it's just going to keep getting worse. We are creeping toward a world in which many, even many who profess to be Christians, will say being a "good person" will make you right with God. Saying homosexuality, abortion, etc. is a sin will get you banned from YT for now. In the future it will get you a prison sentence and worse.
 
Upvote 0

dqhall

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 21, 2015
7,547
4,171
Florida
Visit site
✟766,603.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
They need to be very similar for the sake of sensible and useful comparisons.


The major difference in the influence that the two entities wield make your comparison useless. Their effect on society necessities different responses and concerns.
This policy may be used to oppose hate content that defames Christians.

Some are concerned about neo-Nazis and other hate groups identifying themselves as Christians leading to misunderstanding about who Christians are.
 
Upvote 0

HatGuy

Some guy in a hat
Jun 9, 2014
1,008
786
Visit site
✟123,338.00
Country
South Africa
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Is this a serious response? When did I support Godtube as an alternative or an example of a good platform? My point is only that youtube is not a platform, they are behaving like a publisher when they restrict certain viewpoints they do not like or approve of. They should be honest and admit as such.

I remember when the You in Youtube was about the individual making a video? So long as it didn't have inappropriate content or excessivive violence, you could post whatever and it was sort of this great experiment of people sh** posting each other and making weird experimental content. I remember when the Christians and Atheists were debating each other to death and Youtube poop. It's not really about people anymore, flawed as they are, it's about YouTube trying to make money and get rid of content they don't approve of.

Sure people could be offensive, but so what? Does anyone believe that Carlos Maza is in mortal danger because Steven Crowder called a self described 'gaywonk' unflattering words?
You've got this the wrong way around.

Youtube is a broadcast hosting service that is fully in its right to decide what content it wants to host. If people don't like what it hosts, they can go to another service. It is not a public broadcasting service, neither is it a news organisation. Therefore, if tomorrow it decides its core market is ventriloquists, and it only wants to market to ventriloquists, it is perfectly within its right to delete every video that does not suit its core market. I would have no problem with that.

A publisher - if we're talking journalism here - should not be deciding what content it approves of, but should support unbiased, factual journalism. You seem to be implying that a publisher should be able to restrict viewpoints it doesn't like. Well, technically it can, but it borders on unethical journalism and is definitely bad, bad journalism. Yet, for some reason, a huge chunk of today's journalism school thinks it's okay to produce biased, left-or-right leaning journalism.

Obviously publishers are (and should) be allowed to appeal to a certain niche - say, technology journalism, etc. But news journalism should strive to be unbiased, fair, and factual.

FOX is in the wrong and so is CNN in this case. If I had my way, both of them would be punished somehow for their antics.

Youtube, for its part, is perfectly in its right.

However, to be honest, I consistently find good content on Youtube that is Christian and conservative, and there is no danger of that content being taken off Youtube IMO.
 
Upvote 0

FenderTL5

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.
Supporter
Jun 13, 2016
5,074
5,940
Nashville TN
✟631,633.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Official YouTube Blog: Our ongoing work to tackle hate

Google has initiated a furtherance of its ongoing policy of censoring and banning conservative and Christian content on its YouTube streaming service.

YouTube’s official blog states it is prohibiting “videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status.”

Of course their so called "hate speech" policy is partly guided by false presumptions pertaining to truth claims and competing worldviews. Such a broad outline is very subjective, and unless conservatives and Christians get serious in their prayers concerning a change in the Google’s leadership--as well as in its rank and file-- its employees will, in practice, interpret this in their usual biased fashion.

I would ask praying Christians everywhere to pray for a change in the leadership at Google/YouTube (and at other social media companies), and that any of its attempts to oppose the Christian worldview and agenda is disrupted and ultimately brought to absolutely nothing.

Edit: The Youtube blog apparently uses the words "group" and "ideology" interchangeably.
If one can't express Christianity without resorting to division and hate, maybe public discourse isn't a worthy pursuit for that person. Lord have mercy on me, the sinner.

From this morning's "inbox"
"The graceful speech of a Christian is characterized by delicateness and politeness.
This fact, born of love, produces peace and joy.
On the other hand, boorishness gives birth to hatred, enmity, affliction, competitiveness, disorder and wars."
- Saint Nektarios of Aegina
 
Upvote 0

ChristopherinLA

Active Member
Nov 10, 2017
69
44
44
Los Angeles
✟24,994.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I think the problem with giant tech companies is more than just an ideological battle, but also they are also anti democracy. The solution might be two part: #1 hold them accountable to free speech standards and #2 they need to be broken up because they are stifling competition and have have monopolies in their trade: Facebook (Instagram) and YouTube especially. If they had competition they wouldn’t be so quick to judge others’ speech, but when they are “too big to fail” they can do whatever they want. Also government needs to hold them accountable for their actions in order to guarantee free speech to all people.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,024
3,750
✟287,812.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
You've got this the wrong way around.

Youtube is a broadcast hosting service that is fully in its right to decide what content it wants to host. If people don't like what it hosts, they can go to another service. It is not a public broadcasting service, neither is it a news organisation. Therefore, if tomorrow it decides its core market is ventriloquists, and it only wants to market to ventriloquists, it is perfectly within its right to delete every video that does not suit its core market. I would have no problem with that.

A publisher - if we're talking journalism here - should not be deciding what content it approves of, but should support unbiased, factual journalism. You seem to be implying that a publisher should be able to restrict viewpoints it doesn't like. Well, technically it can, but it borders on unethical journalism and is definitely bad, bad journalism. Yet, for some reason, a huge chunk of today's journalism school thinks it's okay to produce biased, left-or-right leaning journalism.

Obviously publishers are (and should) be allowed to appeal to a certain niche - say, technology journalism, etc. But news journalism should strive to be unbiased, fair, and factual.

FOX is in the wrong and so is CNN in this case. If I had my way, both of them would be punished somehow for their antics.

Youtube, for its part, is perfectly in its right.

However, to be honest, I consistently find good content on Youtube that is Christian and conservative, and there is no danger of that content being taken off Youtube IMO.

You have the difference between a publisher and platform exactly wrong. Journalists and news organisations are Publishers who have the responsibility and ability to limit what they say. They are liable to be sued if they publish deliberately false or slanderous pieces against a person. Honesty is not a requirement to be a publisher. Platforms, like your phone company, cannot be sued if someone uses them to make a call and say slanderous things about you.

The problem with Youtube (Twitter and Facebook too, actually) is that they skirt the lines of both. They editorialize in one direction (usually against conservatives) but not in the other. They want the benefits of both being a platform and a Publisher. Honestly they should get rid of the You in Youtube since it no longer allows or wants unique content by average individuals.

So no, Youtube is not perfectly in the right, especially when they don't apply their rules consistently. They are taking a political side when they demonetize Crowder's comedy for saying mean things, but don't demonetize liberal comedians for saying mean things the other way. So what if Crowder made fun of a self described polyamorous 'gaywonk'? Will Samantha Bee be banned or demonetized for calling Trump's daughter a feckless c**t? Doubt it. This is the ethos of a liberal publisher, not a platform which presents itself as open to the public for anyone to use and profit from.

If they want to admit as such, let them say that they only allow one side to be paid for the content it makes. But they don't and I hope Crowder's half Asian lawyer challenges this and takes it to court.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: antiquarian
Upvote 0

KarateCowboy

Classical liberal
Supporter
Aug 6, 2004
13,390
2,109
✟140,932.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Steven or Stephen Anderson is notorious for abusing gays in his ministry and online. He been made persona non grata in several countries because of it . Which he deserves
Shouldn't it be perversity activists and perversity speech that are banned and non grata?
 
Upvote 0

KarateCowboy

Classical liberal
Supporter
Aug 6, 2004
13,390
2,109
✟140,932.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
If one can't express Christianity without resorting to division and hate, maybe public discourse isn't a worthy pursuit for that person. Lord have mercy on me, the sinner.

From this morning's "inbox"
"The graceful speech of a Christian is characterized by delicateness and politeness.
This fact, born of love, produces peace and joy.
On the other hand, boorishness gives birth to hatred, enmity, affliction, competitiveness, disorder and wars."
- Saint Nektarios of Aegina

Why does that not apply to the Cardinal Sins? I think it's worth pointing out that envy is a form of hate based in insecurity; I don't see anyone going after Envy Speech, which tells me this is all a big dog and pony show.
 
Upvote 0

KarateCowboy

Classical liberal
Supporter
Aug 6, 2004
13,390
2,109
✟140,932.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
The bible is considered hate speech by many people. Everyone hates stuff. God hates stuff. The devil hates stuff.

And notice their opposition to 'hate speech' never extends to 'envy speech', with envy being a form of hatred?

If they really believed what they are preaching then they would seek to ban violent video games and entertainment, because violent speech makes us violent.
 
Upvote 0

AACJ

Please Pray
Nov 17, 2016
1,975
1,584
US
✟103,451.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
If you want to see the slippery slope that this is leading to... an example is in Ontario, near my home, there is a summer camp for kids. It is a Christian camp and holds to Christian values. However, it has been removed from "charitable donation" status because it will not tick the box, on the form that says it agrees with abortion, same sex marriage and other social ideals..

It's a kids camp for crying out loud... a Christian one.. .that cannot teach Christian values....

That is the censorship that is going to happen... Only Christians are fair game for discrimination.
Thanks for the post. Yes, Canada is in serious trouble in regards to the promotion of the secular humanistic worldview. Christians must not allow the fallacy that promotes the idea that the cultural war involves faith systems of belief versus so called secular/naturalistic systems of belief; for all worldviews are in fact faith based. Competing worldviews is a competition of one faith system against another faith system.

Secualr Humanism is a surrogate religion for secularists. Remove the Christian worldview influence from government and it will be replaced by some type of secular-type religion. Judges being grilled during confirmation hearings should voice this. For the secular humanist, God is man wielding science. Secularists are not interested in a neutral government as pertains to the application of worldview principles and practices. This is why teachers are being fired for not using certain preferred pronouns and Darwinian evolution alone is being allowed in so many classrooms.

Google is promoting their own worldview, which does not allow for neutrality.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

KarateCowboy

Classical liberal
Supporter
Aug 6, 2004
13,390
2,109
✟140,932.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Secualr Humanism is a surrogate religion for secularists.

Yup!

It's like William Penn's old saying "Man must be ruled by God(through his conscience) or he will be ruled by tyrants". In the same vein, it seems that when you take God and religion out of the picture, government and politics often become god and religion for them.
 
Upvote 0

AACJ

Please Pray
Nov 17, 2016
1,975
1,584
US
✟103,451.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
As you can tell by many of the posts on this thread, it's just going to keep getting worse. We are creeping toward a world in which many, even many who profess to be Christians, will say being a "good person" will make you right with God. Saying homosexuality, abortion, etc. is a sin will get you banned from YT for now. In the future it will get you a prison sentence and worse.
Hi and thanks for commenting.

There is nothing in Scripture predicting some kind of progressive, worldwide, inevitable moral decline prior to the 1 Thess. 4:17 Rapture. The moral landscape of the nations do not have to decline prior to that event--if Christians will stop with the idea that such decline is inevitable and get busy with being the Salt and Light of the earth through prayer and other means. Such is evidenced by the Great Awakenings that have occurred in the US and in Europe and other great societal moral turn-arounds that have occurred, such as under John Wesley. For goodness sake, the entire north american continent was evangelized, does that sound like inevitable moral decline to you? As soon as you discard such an erroneous eschatological presumption, the sooner your faith and ambition for positive change will skyrocket.

We had a conservative-majority win in 2016, does that sound like inevitable moral decline to you?

We must be careful as to the effect of any eschatological model we affirm.

I apologize if I have misunderstood what you meant.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: HatGuy
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If this is the grounds for demonetization then liberals punished the same way, such as when late night comedians call donald trump Putin's '**** sleeve."
Do you take what comedians say the same as what serious people say? I don't.
 
Upvote 0

HatGuy

Some guy in a hat
Jun 9, 2014
1,008
786
Visit site
✟123,338.00
Country
South Africa
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You have the difference between a publisher and platform exactly wrong. Journalists and news organisations are Publishers who have the responsibility and ability to limit what they say. They are liable to be sued if they publish deliberately false or slanderous pieces against a person. Honesty is not a requirement to be a publisher. Platforms, like your phone company, cannot be sued if someone uses them to make a call and say slanderous things about you.
Either I don't understand what you're saying, or you don't understand what I'm saying.

I agree that publishers (of news) have to limit what they say in that they must be factual and non biased. That was what I stated. I agree that they can't publish false or slanderous pieces. But that's precisely my point.

But then you say "honesty is not a requirement to be a publisher". What do you mean by that? Surely honesty is exactly what is required for factual, non-biased news? Synonyms for "honesty" are "integrity" or "fairness". These are the exact things I, and all of us, should expect from a news publisher.

I suspect you don't mean 'honesty' but you mean something else. I can't figure out what it is you mean, however.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums