Anyone else notice that Google's censorship algorithm is broken?

[ObscuredBeyond]

Comments on torturing the convicted murderer are allowed to stay. Comments on how that's merely stooping to his level, and how the court giving him a quick execution would be smarter, are deleted hastily, along with threats of account termination for "harassment and bullying."

Why is it "bullying" to call for the death penalty for a man who murders his children in cold blood; but not bullying to call for him to be tortured? Make it make sense.

YouTube also refuses to explain their reasoning for this accusation, and denies a proper appeals process, with the whole "trust me, bro" as their excuse. But they tie your account to everything else with Google. So if they don't like what you have to say, you suddenly can't use your phone to buy drinks at the store.

How is that even legal?

[Soteris]

First of all, Google is a private company. They can do whatever they like and are not bound by things like the first amendment "freedom of speech". Secondly, Google is a corporation and they will follow two things. The law, but most importantly their profit. Since Youtubes profits comes from advertisers that means they decide what is allowed and not allowed on youtube.

Youtube does not really care personally, but if something is not "advertiser friendly" which is judged by their customers then they will bend over backwards to make sure they feel comfortable buying ads on youtube.

Its not that Googles censorship algorithm is broken, it is working as intended, it is that advertisers have extremely weird demands and most of the time does not know what they want. Being internally contradictory is just normal for these idiots. Spare yourself the headache and dont try to make sense of what advertisers want or dont want. Leave that bucket of stupid for AI's to deal with and save humans from such suffering.

[ObscuredBeyond]

When they tie everything to your money, and infringe on basic speech, especially if they do so at the behest of the FBI asking them to do it on behalf of a direct request from Congress, then they are in face participating in a direct assault on First Amendment rights, and are in fact breaking the law.

Being a private company doesn't give you the right to control everyone's thoughts and money.

[Soteris]

Youtube does not control thought, its a social media platform and banks are allowed to refuse service in handling your money.

You are just flailing about randomly here.

[ObscuredBeyond]

All Google services are tied together. To lose an account with one, is to risk losing everything invested in Google. And when their reason is a false accusation, and you don't get to appeal their response to a false accusation, then they have in fact violated your rights.

[ObscuredBeyond]

I filed an appeal against YouTube. I use my blog to publish my books. To threaten to shut down my operation because they want to recontextualize a comment I made on a video to apply to something it doesn't apply to is defamation and sabotage. I won't stand for that.

[Soteris]

Google services are only tied together if you make them. You are free to make separate accounts if you like and I myself have several for different purposes.

And again, Google is a private corporation. They do not need to justify their actions to simply deny you service. As stupid as it sounds but corporation also has rights and they are not forced to service you.

[ObscuredBeyond]

They don't have a right to recontextualize my speech into something it isn't. And when they act on behalf of Congress doing what Congress is expressly forbidden to do, then they have become willing participants in lawbreaking. You are not on the right side of this. In fact, your snide attitude is exactly how the Holocaust was able to happen, and why it will happen again.

[Soteris]

Oh really? Godwins law? Whatever.

When they act on behalf of congress then it is congress that is at fault, not google. In fact, I do not think they have much authority to say no unless they actively try it in court. A valid government order to do something illegal is still a valid government order which has to be obeyed or challenged in court. You can't just decide to ignore it because you think it is illegal.

What I can't understand however is why you think google censorship has literally anything to do with Congress aside from them establishing a few things as being illegal.

[ObscuredBeyond]

Niemoller's postulate. You reek of it.

[Soteris]

Oh grow up. You are just upset and are trying to find someone responsible and you dont like the options. It is so much easier when you can just blame the government is it not? Or perhaps some shadowy cabal controlling the world. Your desperation is palpable.

[ObscuredBeyond]

Don't bitch to me when they kill your grandparents, like they did to both my grandfathers. I have no sympathy for your ignorance.

[jshm2]

Their algorithm is fine, it's about community reporting and flagging. If not enough people are flagging or reporting, then it doesn't lose in the algorithm, or get taken down.

It's better to downvote or report before commenting, as that way the algorithm knows it's engagement, and not reaction.

As for your Youtube video. Hardly "evil" and seems like a product of the terrible American healthcare system. Guy didn't care for his mental health.

[findacure4wokeness]

That's why you Shouldn't trust any mainstream sources of information. I've found that most people that value freedom of speech are confident that the truth is on their side while people who push for censorship are afraid that truth will expose them as liars and/or deceivers.

[ObscuredBeyond]

It wasn't Ali that reported my post. It was the bots that patrol the site. Apparently, all references to someone being burned at the stake are now forbidden. But references to jail torture are still allowed. Huge cognitive dissonance to allow one, but not allow mention of the other.

[findacure4wokeness]

Yeah I guess so. It could be broken but I think it was likely intentionally made that way By someone who thinks that only their opinion matters, there is too much of that going around these days. The left AI developers have shut down AIs for reaching politically incorrect local conclusions. here is a woke based AI being demolished with facts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-_78a0HXCY

[ObscuredBeyond]

If it can't even outsmart Ben Shapiro, then the AI is an epic fail. And if it conceding to him results in its founders shutting it down, that betrays that they know they have no moral leg left to stand on, and are in total panic mode; but lust for absolute power anyway.

This really does prove what Horowitz has been saying for the last 40 years:

"Inside the soul of every so-called progressive, there's a totalitarian screaming to get out."

[exitseven]

I thought you were going to say that it was not censoring conservatives. I should have known better.

[AviatorTom]

Simple answer to your question...

The death penalty is legal in most US states while torture is never legal in any state.

[Sevenpointfive]

it's not legal. it's harassment and bullying

[ObscuredBeyond]

So YouTube are hypocrites. Which doesn't surprise me. They banned Sons of Liberty for exposing the criminality of the jabs; but protected the criminals. And now, the jabs have killed millions. But the criminals are still being defended. YouTube's CEO is a loathe hypocrite and a murderer.

[Sevenpointfive]

it's all part of the "their plan". Just Eat Water SundayS

[hahahmm]

If you haven't been banned by YouTube you don't have anything interesting to say.

[FunkyMonkee]

Good!! Does that mean I can post dirty pictures and say things like, "hell', "bitch", "ass" and "Trump"?