DanishLutheran
Well-Known Member
They promote fascist ideology though.
No. They don't. Not unless you change the meaning of "fascist" away from its actual meaning and into "anything I disagree with"
Upvote
0
They promote fascist ideology though.
A question that I'm not sure I know the answer to exactly, but:
Who would Prager and Shapiro dislike more? Me a liberal Jew (who Ben would call an "ethnic Jew") who is a social Democrat or someone like Richard Spencer, a person who pushes for a white ethnostate? I suspect me.
Did Benjamin go off the rails?
Why would that matter? Are we treating you-tube and the internet at large like a public utility now?
Because I don't remember that particular law or debate.
You also seem to be assuming that you can program an algorithm or AI to simply do what you want ideologically. I am not sure that is true.
That is why yesterday during testimony before the senate Ted Cruz again asked them if they operate as a platform, which they said they did, and they said they do not discriminate based on political views.
They clearly do discriminate based upon some views, so this might not be an issue of them thinking those views are "political" but rather just a basic violation of their terms of service.
Acting as a platform does not in any way require that that platform host extremist and discriminatory viewpoints so I think your reading of that law is simply incorrect.
It is not my reading. It was the reading during the hearing yesterday in the Senate. And it was part of Senator Hawley's proposed bill, in which he proposes a means to see whether they are in fact acting in a neutral fashion.
They can't be neutral to all ideas, that is hogwash.
The Google employee claims to be a neutral platform, etc. in the senate Testimony.
However, after some more research, I think that lawmakers are not being completely forthcoming. I know, that is a shock. They seem to be making the argument of the intent of 230, but that doesn't seem to add up in the actual text of the bill. And it certainly doesn't line up with recent case rulings.
Based on some law blogs I am reading I think their current reading of the bill is incorrect. Law suits centered around section 230 arguments against censorship have not been upheld, so unless the new bill by Hawley passes, or some other bill that specifically requires them to be neutral content platforms, I don't think much will change.
All this just because some talking head can't make as much money using someone else's web site as he did before?They have been demonetizing videos on his channel based on AI etc. for some time.
I get that this is the spin, but I'm not seeing it from the emails mentioned in the OP.The problem again is Youtubes ongoing removal of content based on ideology or political speech even though they are a platform enjoying liability protections on that basis.
This is another example of how Youtube could help themselves a lot if they just gave more details about changes to the algorithm so content creators know what to expect and understand the rationale.
The only problem I see here is at least one software engineer at google jumping to at least one conclusion they probably should not have.
Seeing as they would not include him in a white ethnostate and the type of folks Spencer appeals to were arrested for death threats against him...I think that is obvious.
He doesn't have much great to say about ethnic Jews. But I don't think you are at death threat level.
They are simply asking for something that no one could reasonably provide. A catch 22 if you will.
It's simply impossible to remain completely neutral from every perspective and still retain the rights to remove offensive or even dangerous content.
I get that this is the spin, but I'm not seeing it from the emails mentioned in the OP.
Assuming they have the information (AIs are sometimes pretty opaque) why would they give people tools to game the system?
Given the lack of context, we have zero idea what data informed his conclusions. Given Veritas' previous behavior, I can imagine why they failed to release enough information to get an accurate picture.
An ethno state is a virtual impossibility, whereas shifting to ultraconservative policies is possible. Spencer and his ilk would support those ultraconservative policies whereas I wouldn't. Don't be so sure they wouldn't see me as more of the threat since liberal policies are also possible.