More YouTube Biased Censorship

[dad]

For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds -- 2 Corinthians 10

Right and one weapon we use as well as the enemy is words. The media in question here censors words of certain kinds. It becomes a matter of preaching the gospel, or trying to squelch it.

 

[Ringo84]

You must be addressing the wrong OP.

No, I'm addressing you because many people - and possibly you - have a mistaken idea that free speech means "I never receive blow back for the offensive/hateful/riot-inducing things that I say".

Suppose Jason Kessler, ringleader of the infamous "Unite The Reich" rally back in '17, wanted to have a Youtube channel where he could preach his hate. Should Youtube allow him to race-bait and gin up riots in the name of "free speech", or do we have the right not to hear from hatemongers like him? I know the answer, and it's definitely not the former.
Ringo

 

[cow451]

Young people of the world are majorly influenced by the content on youtube and the like. The reasons for this are not baffling.

That explains why the world is going to Sheol in a woven basket. Actually I see a lot of older people doing the same crap.

 

[Johan_1988]

Hi and God bless. God bless the saints in South Africa. Praying for Africa and the nations of the world.

Google is a privately held company, and so it would be difficult to challenge any possible biased filtering on a first amendment basis. Dennis Prager of PraguU fame had his case dismissed, but as I understand, he is challenging them in court again on a number of grounds.

PragerU files second lawsuit against Google for restricting conservative YouTube videos

Thanks for the blessings.Yes, I get your point. It is an difficult undertaking indeed. Lets just hope and pray it works out in the end.

 

[RDKirk]

Right and one weapon we use as well as the enemy is words. The media in question here censors words of certain kinds. It becomes a matter of preaching the gospel, or trying to squelch it.

It's not as though YouTube was something sacred.

Jesus did not stand in Pilate's court to teach.

Paul sometimes rented a hall, and never stayed where people were not willing to hear him.

Do you really think Jesus can't do better than YouTube today?

 

[dad]

It's not as though YouTube was something sacred.

Jesus did not stand in Pilate's court to teach.

Paul sometimes rented a hall, and never stayed where people were not willing to hear him.

Do you really think Jesus can't do better than YouTube today?

These days people rent space or use space on the net to communicate.

 

[AACJ]

No, I'm addressing you because many people - and possibly you - have a mistaken idea that free speech means "I never receive blow back for the offensive/hateful/riot-inducing things that I say".

Suppose Jason Kessler, ringleader of the infamous "Unite The Reich" rally back in '17, wanted to have a Youtube channel where he could preach his hate. Should Youtube allow him to race-bait and gin up riots in the name of "free speech", or do we have the right not to hear from hatemongers like him? I know the answer, and it's definitely not the former.
Ringo

Again you're on the wrong thread, your strawman fallacies, and false equations do nothing to address the OP nor to stop or rectify Google's godless agenda and growing misuse of power.

 

[AACJ]

That explains why the world is going to Sheol in a woven basket. Actually I see a lot of older people doing the same crap.

Actually, it is a gross generalization to claim that the world is currently "going to Sheol in a woven basket." There has been plenty of positive progress and successful evangelism occurring in the world.

Progressive moral evil in the world is primarily the fault of the Church; for no true good will emerge in society unless it is brought forth through God's people. If it does not come forth, the fault lies mostly at the feet of the Church.

 

[Ringo84]

Again you're on the wrong thread, your strawman fallacies, and false equations do nothing to address the OP nor to stop or rectify Google's godless agenda and growing misuse of power.

Or maybe I'm pointing out the fact that many people seem to miss these days in similar discussions as this one: that free speech does not mean freedom from consequences of that speech.
Ringo

 

[AACJ]

For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds -- 2 Corinthians 10

Hi,

You seem to be using that verse to advocate for not defending the Christian worldview or agenda, pertaining to youtube, by natural means and methods. You also seem to not have read all of the OP, I did mention Christians apposing YouTube's biased filtering by means including prayer. Do you believe prayer is not on of the Church's weapons? Of course our spiritual weapons are more important than natural means in opposing evil in the world, but their primary place does not negate the importance of natural means. For example, a person could remove a firearm out of the presence of a person inclined to use that same firearm for an unlawful purpose. That removal is not a spiritual action--from a certain perspective--but the carnal, natural nature of that action does not preclude a Christian from taking such action.

The use of the word, "carnal" in the verse does seem to carry the primary meaning of that which is not spiritual in nature, but Paul could not have been strictly excluding the use of the speaking of words to resist evil in the world, for both Christ, Paul, and others used words to resist evil--even though the speaking of words is, strictly speaking, a natural, mechanical action (yes, spoken words can and often do go forth with spiritual force), can anyone believe that Paul never spoke against the evil policies or actions of leaders outside of what is documented in Scripture (speaking against policies and actions is not the equivalent of speaking against a person, for persons are not actions or policies)?

Also, in using the word, "war," Paul could have been at least partially be referring to actual unjustified physical violence, which of course is not encouraged in the OP. Indeed, historical context aside, considering the fact that Scripture is directed to all peoples in all places and times, a possible warning in this passage not to resort to unnecessary physical violence brings additional significance to this passage in 2 Corinthians.

In addition, there is a particular mode of expression in the Bible wherein one idea/action is emphasized in importance over against another idea/action--without completely negating or prohibiting the less important idea/action. There are plenty of examples of this in Scripture, and I believe that is also occurring in 2 Corinthians 10:3-5. So 'mighty, spiritual weapons/means'' is the stressed idea and 'carnal (natural) weapons/means' is the less stressed idea. One being stressed over the other. People nowdays still use this type or mode of expression, but it seems it is done to a lesser extent than what appears in Scripture.

 

[AACJ]

that free speech does not mean freedom from consequences of that speech.
Ringo

Another strawman. I have not advocated for Youtube completely abandoning the idea of filtering their platform's content. What I am arguing for is both the reality of google's godless agenda in advancing their worldview on youtbe and elsewhere, their biased filtering practices (and the presumptions underlying such) and also the need and necessity of the Church's intervention in such through lawful means and methods. So your arguing against a non-existing proposition concerning the OP or any of my statements.

 

[Ringo84]

Another strawman. I have not advocated for Youtube completely abandoning the idea of filtering their platform's content. What I am arguing for is both the reality of google's godless agenda in advancing their worldview on youtbe and elsewhere, their biased filtering practices (and the presumptions underlying such) and also the need and necessity of the Church's intervention in such through lawful means and methods. So your arguing against a non-existing proposition concerning the OP or any of my statements.

What "worldview" do you think they're advocating? It's not Youtube's job to promote Christianity (or atheism for that matter, but they're not doing that); it's the church's.
Ringo

 

[RDKirk]

Hi,

You seem to be using that verse to advocate for not defending the Christian worldview or agenda, pertaining to youtube, by natural means and methods.

When a soldier is in combat, he doesn't try to use the enemy's weapons. For one reason, he isn't trained on them--he doesn't know how to use them to best effect. For the other--most importantly--his commander is not going to provide more ammunition for enemy's weapon. The commander doesn't support the weapons of the enemy.

If we can discern that YouTube, in particular, is not a weapon of Christ but its an effective weapon of the enemy, then that's what it is. We cannot use the enemy's weapons to good effect. Christ provides our weapons.

Here is a question with an easy scriptural answer: How did the congregation in Jerusalem win over many of the priests of the temple? Did they do it by theological arguments, as the priests loved to debate one another?

No. They won over many of the priests by achieving a spiritual resolution to the issue of Hebraic bigotry against Hellenists.

 

[dad]

What "worldview" do you think they're advocating?

People who view the world with no God advocate all sorts of filthy ideas like abortion, godless education, Sodom lifestyles, and etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. Then they turn around and censor people with sane views and call it hate speech etc.

It's not Youtube's job to promote Christianity (or atheism for that matter, but they're not doing that);

By minimizing Light and truth they maximize darkness and garbage.

it's the church's.
Ringo

The church system is not really much of a player in big media. Their job seems to be to build more churches and try to please big brother to keep their tax status..etc etc. The issue is not 'churches', it is people and voices on one side or the other.

 

[Ringo84]

People who view the world with no God advocate all sorts of filthy ideas like abortion, godless education, Sodom lifestyles, and etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. Then they turn around and censor people with sane views and call it hate speech etc.

By minimizing Light and truth they maximize darkness and garbage.

The church system is not really much of a player in big media. Their job seems to be to build more churches and try to please big brother to keep their tax status..etc etc. The issue is not 'churches', it is people and voices on one side or the other.

Again: not sure why you seem to think it's Youtube's job to police people's views on "filthy ideas".

I can understand if you're talking about policing hate or violence incitement; those are clearly things that should be very tightly regulated so that white supremacist nonsense doesn't spread. But getting rid of videos because some Christians find that they advocate "filthy views" seems exactly like the type of censorship a lot of Christians decry because they think it's being used against them.
Ringo

 

[dad]

Again: not sure why you seem to think it's Youtube's job to police people's views on "filthy ideas".

You misunderstand THEY police WITH filthy ideas!

I can understand if you're talking about policing hate or violence incitement; those are clearly things that should be very tightly regulated so that white supremacist nonsense doesn't spread. But getting rid of videos because some Christians find that they advocate "filthy views" seems exactly like the type of censorship a lot of Christians decry because they think it's being used against them.
Ringo

They get rif of many things that THEY find bad, which is about like the devil getting rid of what he may find bad. No one wants the demonic self righteous preachy media hypocrites censoring the gospel, or truth or other points of view etc etc. while at the same time sheltering and protecting evil.

 

[Ringo84]

You misunderstand THEY police WITH filthy ideas!
They get rif of many things that THEY find bad, which is about like the devil getting rid of what he may find bad. No one wants the demonic self righteous preachy media hypocrites censoring the gospel, or truth or other points of view etc etc. while at the same time sheltering and protecting evil.

Which brings the conversation full circle back to my original question: what is being put up there that is bad enough to be noticed by Youtube and removed?

I'm not saying that the algorithm or the people who work there don't make mistakes, heaven knows. I've been quite upset with the way in which Twitter in particular has handled (or not handled) white supremacy.

Generally, though, they don't remove something unless it incites violence or hatred. So I'm confused why Youtube would risk the bad press and embarrassment of getting rid of Christian videos because of their supposedly "filthy ideas".
Ringo

 

[dad]

Which brings the conversation full circle back to my original question: what is being put up there that is bad enough to be noticed by Youtube and removed?

A quick search about it's parent company gave thousands of results. You idding?
examples

Google Rejects Christian Publisher Ads that Mention Jesus

Social Media Censorship Is Out of Control

Facebook, Twitter and Google/YouTube Censoring Christians | The Stream

Google’s ‘battle with the Bible’: YouTube demonetizes Christian author’s 1,600 videos

Censoring Christianity: How We’re Being Silenced, and How to Cope

Now should we search for causes and groups that google effectively promotes!?

I'm not saying that the algorithm or the people who work there don't make mistakes, heaven knows. I've been quite upset with the way in which Twitter in particular has handled (or not handled) white supremacy.

Buzz terms like nazi or hate or etc can mean anything they like to have it mean almost. They could for example consider parts of the bible hat speech or against women or abortion etc etc etc. The problem is not dozey staff, but deliberate corporate actions.

Generally, though, they don't remove something unless it incites violence or hatred.

Nonsense. I could probably find a lot of violence it allows. As for hatred that was covered and is basically anything the new elite hate! Ha.

 

[Ringo84]

A quick search about it's parent company gave thousands of results. You idding?
examples

Google Rejects Christian Publisher Ads that Mention Jesus

Social Media Censorship Is Out of Control

Facebook, Twitter and Google/YouTube Censoring Christians | The Stream

Google’s ‘battle with the Bible’: YouTube demonetizes Christian author’s 1,600 videos

Censoring Christianity: How We’re Being Silenced, and How to Cope

Now should we search for causes and groups that google effectively promotes!?


Buzz terms like nazi or hate or etc can mean anything they like to have it mean almost. They could for example consider parts of the bible hat speech or against women or abortion etc etc etc. The problem is not dozey staff, but deliberate corporate actions.
Nonsense. I could probably find a lot of violence it allows. As for hatred that was covered and is basically anything the new elite hate! Ha.

Lifesite News is not exactly what I would consider the most trustworthy site in the world. They probably think that a Target employee failing to say 'Merry Christmas' to them is the equivalent of Christians being put on the rack.

As I said, I don't deny that Youtube corporate makes mistakes, but I am very skeptical of claims that Christians are systematically being silenced. That reminds me of this: Imgur
Ringo

 

[RDKirk]

Ninety percent or more of Christian content on YouTube is untouched.