YouTube Making Some 9/11 Content Harder to Find

Discussion in '9/11' started by Bob0627, Jan 26, 2019.

  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,320
    Likes Received:
    1,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    YouTube Moves to Make Conspiracy Videos Harder to Find

    YouTube provided only three examples of the types of videos that it would stop recommending: those promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness, ones claiming the earth is flat or content making blatantly false claims about historic events like the Sept. 11 attacks.


    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/25/technology/youtube-conspiracy-theory-videos.html

    The problem is who at YouTube decides what is a "blatantly false claim" about 9/11 and on what basis. The same is true for "phony miracle cures". And what's the harm with "flat earth" claims anyway? This is of course a form of censorship. Who are they to decide? And what else is YouTube going to censor in the future?
     
  2. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,250
    Likes Received:
    2,579
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Censorship imposed by private companies is a sign of a modern fascist society.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  3. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,510
    Likes Received:
    1,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This isn't about censoring the videos - they'll remain on the site and entirely searchable as normal. This is specifically about the videos YouTube "recommends". I'd suggest the implications of that word means they have to be making some kind of conscious decision over what kind of videos they will or won't recommend. As long as they're being open about, I don't see the problem.
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,320
    Likes Received:
    1,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The problem is it's blatant censorship. Those browsing 9/11 videos should be afforded the exact same level of YouTube recommendations as for any other subject anyone is browsing. There is absolutely no other purpose or reason for this other than selective censorship.
     
  5. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,833
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The proof that 9/11 was an inside job is crushing.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...orted-9-11-terrorists.456423/#post-1066183060

    I entered "9/11" in the search function...
    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=9/11&sp=mAEB

    ...and all of the videos that came up seem to be based on the idea that the official story is true. YouTube will be steering people away from the truth and only showing them lies unless they also enter "Conspiracy", or "Inside job" when they search. This is blatant bias.

    That's still not as bad as the mainstream in which only lies are available I suppose...
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...germany-in-1933.401955/page-3#post-1066548138

    ...but is seems to be slowly moving in that direction. I guess it's a question of time until YouTube is like the mainstream and only lies will be available − how depressing.
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,320
    Likes Received:
    1,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's not entirely true but you do have to page down through many videos before you reach the first one that challenges the OCT.
     
  7. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    They are steering people away from cranks. Coming up for two decades and not a single piece of incriminating evidence exists.

    YouTube is the most banal useless place on the web, for the sheer volume of crazy conspiracy hogwash.
     
  8. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,833
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I found a propaganda video on page #2.

    9/11 Science and Conspiracy



    Check out some of the comments.

    "the only thing that matters is who paid for this documentary..."

    "Building 7. Enough said. This is CIA propaganda. Worst video ever."

    "What about WTC building 7? Not even mentioned here!"


    I finally found this on page #3.

    Architects and engineers say 9/11 twin tower collapse was not possible



    Not many people would go all the way to page #3. This is subtle censorship.
     
  9. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,833
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,320
    Likes Received:
    1,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For you there never will be. But in the US, the following 42 exhibits (some of which are YouTube videos) that include documented eyewitness accounts and actual 9/11 footage, among other things, and which have been filed in a federal court of law is called incriminating evidence. It is only the tip of the iceberg and much more will be filed within the next few months but the vast majority is still called incriminating evidence and it definitely exists:

    https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/exhibits-index-grand-jury-petition/

    So you agree with censorship then, one of the most powerful tools of fascism and authoritarianism?
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,320
    Likes Received:
    1,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I found this on the first page Scott:

     
  12. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,510
    Likes Received:
    1,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not convinced you've read and understood their statement. This isn't targeted at specific topic areas, they were just examples given. If they don't like the quality of nature of a video, they're not going to recommend it regardless of the subject.

    The purpose is marketing. They're doing (or at least saying they're doing) what they think the majority of their customers want them to do. They want their customers to watch more monetised videos, watching more adverts and therefore making YouTube more money. Economics > politics. :cool:
     
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,320
    Likes Received:
    1,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Whether you're convinced or not my comprehension of the English language is at least at the level of a typical college graduate if not better. I understood it quite perfectly but I can't say the same for you. The title of the article and the content is as clear as day:

    SAN FRANCISCO — Whether it is a video claiming the earth is flat or the moon landing was faked, conspiracy theories are not hard to find on Google’s YouTube. But in a significant policy change, YouTube said on Friday that it planned to stop recommending them. ["them" clearly refers to conspiracy theories NOT "quality"]

    After years of criticism that YouTube leads viewers to videos that spread misinformation, the company said it was changing what videos it recommended to users. In a blog post, YouTube said it would no longer suggest videos with “borderline content” or those that “misinform users in a harmful way” even if the footage did not violate its community guidelines.

    This is copied exactly from YouTube's OFFICIAL BLOG:


    To that end, we’ll begin reducing recommendations of borderline content and content that could misinform users in harmful ways—such as videos promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness, claiming the earth is flat, or making blatantly false claims about historic events like 9/11.

    https://youtube.googleblog.com/2019/01/continuing-our-work-to-improve.html


    All the above refers specifically to conspiracy theories. And specifically what YouTube considers "borderline content" or "misinform[ing] users in a harmful way". I can understand that one might interpret videos promoting phony cures might be harmful but private/personal conspiracy theories? That's an incredibly ridiculous stretch.

    Yet, the problem is that the official 9/11 conspiracy theory is accepted as fact by YouTube and certainly not borderline content and misinforming users in a harmful way. But it definitely does the latter very blatantly and very successfully. That is not to say I agree with censorship of any kind, not even extremely harmful/lethal government propaganda.
     
  14. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,510
    Likes Received:
    1,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The NYT said "conspiracies theories", the YouTube blog didn't (it isn't only YouTubers misleading users ;) ). You can raise perfectly valid questions about YouTube's statement but they should be about their actual statement.

    Again, this is about recommendations YouTube make. They're always going to be selective and that's always going to be on whatever factors YouTube decide to base that on. If this is censorship now, it would be censorship before they made this change. If you object to this "censorship", the only solution would be for YouTube to recommend literally any set of random videos or recommend nothing at all, neither of which helps anyone.
     
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,320
    Likes Received:
    1,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually the ONLY 3 examples YouTube mentioned in their own blog ARE conspiracy theories.

    To that end, we’ll begin reducing recommendations of borderline content and content that could misinform users in harmful ways—such as videos promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness, claiming the earth is flat, or making blatantly false claims about historic events like 9/11.

    Phony miracle cures - are a conspiracy to defraud (IF they are actually "phony").
    Flat earth claims - are conspiracy theories claiming we've been lied to for centuries.
    9/11 - Anything that doesn't fit the official 9/11 narrative (the official 9/11 conspiracy theory) is considered by gullible and indoctrinated people (and likely YouTube) to be a conspiracy theory, including but not limited to building collapse theories, eyewitness claims of explosions and molten steel, among others, which are not conspiracy theories at all.

    It doesn't matter what anyone objects to YouTube (Google) will do what it wants. Recommendations by YouTube should be within the context of a specific search, period, absolutely uncensored. Whether this helps anyone or not is subjective and irrelevant.

    According to YouTube's latest form of censorship if one searches for flat earth claims for example, nothing will be recommended because YouTube decided.
     
  16. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No, it is called case evidence. Some can also be sub classified as circumstantial evidence. It very much remains to be seen whether it is incriminating, to what degree and what offence(s) exactly has been committed.

    I said "YouTube is the most banal useless place on the web, for the sheer volume of crazy conspiracy hogwash."

    I agree that it is full of crazy conspiracy hogwash. Nothing is being censored and your non sequitur is also hogwash.
     
  17. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It isn't censorship. But hey, anything that stops easily led people from being easily led by hogwash works for me.
     
  18. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,510
    Likes Received:
    1,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This isn't about search results, it's about the other videos automatically recommended after watching one. That's always seemed to be based on a complex mixed of factors and this appears to be an adjustment to that.
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,320
    Likes Received:
    1,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All evidence in a case is "case evidence". The case is the deliberate destruction of 3 towers on 9/11, which was a criminal act (to say the least) and the evidence presented to the grand jury is INCRIMINATING evidence (a sub-classification of case evidence). Every crime brought to a grand jury includes incriminating evidence. If there was none there would be no crime. Without incriminating evidence no case can be brought to a grand jury.

    in·crim·i·nate

    (ĭn-krĭm′ə-nāt′)tr.v. in·crim·i·nat·ed, in·crim·i·nat·ing, in·crim·i·nates
    1.
    To accuse of a crime or other wrongful act.
    2. To cause to appear guilty of a crime or fault; implicate:

    https://www.thefreedictionary.com/incriminating

    ev·i·dence

    2. Law

    a. The means by which an allegation may be proven, such as oral testimony, documents, or physical objects.
    b. The set of legal rules determining what testimony, documents, and objects may be admitted as proof in a trial.

    https://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence

    That's correct and many have been convicted on far less circumstantial evidence.

    The offenses (among many others) are the destruction of the 3 towers on 9/11, terrorism, mass murder and complicity. And the incriminating evidence (see English language definitions) are most of the exhibits filed with the petition.

    Anything that is deliberately and selectively being treated differently for the purpose of hiding content is CENSORSHIP. Censorship is not a non sequitur nor does it belong to me and your support/defense/denial/apologist (pick one, all or a combo) position of blatant censorship is a yes answer to my question (as I fully expected).

    (all you needed to do was answer YES, the rest IS truly hogwash)
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2019
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,320
    Likes Received:
    1,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok if you want to be semantic, YouTube claims the recommended videos for 3 specific examples of conspiracy theories after watching any of these will be CENSORED.
     
  21. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No, I don't want to be semantic, I want to be accurate. Try it!

    "YouTube is not taking down the targeted videos, and it will still recommend them to users who subscribe to a channel that creates such content. Also, YouTube will not exclude the so-called borderline videos from search results.

    -----

    YouTube’s recommendation engine has been denounced for pushing users to troubling content even when they showed little interest in such videos. It has also been blamed for widening the political divide in the country, pushing already partisan viewers to more extreme points of view.

    The new policy is also the latest example of YouTube’s taking a more aggressive approach to content that many find distasteful even if it is not in violation of the service’s community guidelines. YouTube provided only three examples of the types of videos that it would stop recommending:"


    Do you know what a RECOMMENDATION is?
     
  22. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,510
    Likes Received:
    1,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I wasn't "being semantic", you made a statement that was entirely and unconditionally false. If you're going to attack someone for doing something, you have a moral responsibility to be honest and accurate about what they're actually doing.

    The only semantics here is your determination to declare this "censorship" and sure, if you want to call it that go for it. On that basis, it must be censorship when they don't chose recommendations based on any other characteristic. Aren't they censoring small YouTubers because recommendations are in part based on view counts and trending? What about when they're disincentivising videos with click-bait titles? You're not objecting to "censorship", you're only objecting to "censorship" of things you like.
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2019
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,320
    Likes Received:
    1,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you wanted to be accurate you would have acknowledged that many of the exhibits filed along with the grand jury petition is INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE rather than deny it is.

    What YouTube is doing is CENSORSHIP, plain and simple. They are filtering/removing specific content and admitting they are, that's censorship no matter how much you love it and want to dress it up.

    So spank me, I stated it incorrectly and you stated it correctly and I'm admitting to my awful transgression. Feel better now?

    I wasn't "attacking" you for doing anything. As to censorship, see above response, it certainly is that and it has nothing to do with whether I or you like it or not. I vehemently oppose censorship of almost any kind, especially the kind linked to government propaganda and the extreme hypocrisy. I do agree with some necessary censorship (e.g. access of some adult material to children).

    Most people still have no clue about WTC7 or Dr. Hulsey's research and very few have any idea about the latest grand jury action BECAUSE of deliberate MSM censorship. But most know full well about the official 9/11 CONspiracy theory because the MSM is always eager to promote it without question. And along comes YouTube eager to help out with its own brand of 9/11 censorship.
     
  24. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Waste of time "discussing" this.

    YouTube is changing how it RECOMMENDS videos. I find it laughable that those who beat their drums for two decades are complaining because people are fed up with the noise!

    YouTube "censors" videos by only recomnending ones that make them money! I personally feel pissed when after watching a video about some fairly neutral subject I get a few dumb conspiracy videos on my recommended list!

    Evidence becomes incriminating when the use of it leads to a conviction or it is used to bring state or federal proceedings. Just because private complaints think something is incriminating doesn't make it so in the eyes of the law. More importantly is to what action it is incriminating about - so whilst you incessantly insist it proves government involvement it could equally relate to just poor decisions, national security, badly expedited clear ups and a whole host of innocent and banal reasons. I am not remotely confident that any conclusion of the latter list would be acceptable to you.
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2019
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,320
    Likes Received:
    1,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So why are you here discussing this? It seems to me you neither understand censorship nor incriminating evidence but you insist on discussing these regardless.

    The former is 100% incorrect and the latter is correct only if you mean legal proceedings and include local proceedings as well. Incriminating evidence is incriminating evidence by English language definition the moment it's filed in a criminal proceeding, which is what a petition for a grand jury investigation is. There is no such thing as a criminal proceeding without incriminating evidence, at least not in the US. Incriminating evidence does not necessarily mean the accused is guilty of any of the charges, in fact the accused may be found not guilty despite the incriminating evidence or may even have all the charges dismissed. It's apparent you invent your own definitions that disagree with English language definitions even after you've been corrected by English language definitions. It's also apparent you know nothing about the law and courtroom proceedings, at least not in the US.
     

Share This Page