David Icke's Youtube channel deleted

[Muttley Snickers]

I'm not familiar with either of the creators mentioned nor any of their stuff but if they had such a large following then couldn't they just continue on another platform ?

[EEVblog]

I'm not familiar with either of the creators mentioned nor any of their stuff but if they had such a large following then couldn't they just continue on another platform ?

Sure, but that's not discussion.
FYI, I'm not familiar with them either, apart from David Icke having some popular viral video about the dangers of 5G.

[bd139]

Well that's the thing isn't it. It's about balance. They didn't remove Icke, who has been talking crazy shit for years, until harm was actually done from people boosted by his ideas.

No, it was done now because it was politically expedient to do so. No one gave a toss about him before all this.
He was not removed because of what people did with his rantings, he was specifically removed for "posting misleading information about the coronavirus pandemic."
and I quote directly from Youtube:
"YouTube has clear policies prohibiting any content that disputes the existence and transmission of Covid-19 as described by the WHO and the NHS,"

And then there's the other point where intentionally harmful ideologies are promoted. I don't see any whining about the latter.

That's the official reason he was booted.

Exactly so what's the problem? Honstly Anthony Steel is still up there. Go and watch a few videos: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsAwM1EqcYXKeIEufJqwWjw

He has been reported to YT and Home office here so far several times. Diddly fucking squat happens and the next thing someone has torched our 4G tower down the road 

Go read all the comments as well. There are people in there actually saying they have done stuff or are going to do stuff.

Where do you stand? I stand by case-by-case reason not a blanket free speech policy or blanket censorship both of which are harmful. Reason here is shutting a quite frankly stupid idea down.

If it was just this one person once during this crisis, I don't think many people would have a major problem with it. But the real problem lies in a pattern of behavior at Youtube that has results in the removal of hundreds of channels, and this will only get worse.
This is why I spoke out about Alex Jones as it was clearly the "canary in the coal mine", the publisher thought police slippery slope, and I was 100% right. It will only continue to get worse if people don't speak about about it. And sadly people like you will only care when it's someone or some channel, or some genre of content you care about.

Well a few points here. If we look at the content which is being kicked off it's fundamentally dealing with misinformation at a galactic level (InfoWars) and crazy folk with a following (Icke). My father was a somewhat rabid InfoWars follower and it made the last two years of his life fearful and paranoia to the point his psych said he shouldn't even be allowed near the content. He died crying worried about the world as it was promoted not how it is.

That's the real impact here and that's why they need to be shut the fuck down hard. Real people are burning years of their lives away on paranoid delusions.

As for the slippery slope, I can't disagree with what they have done with those two channels. I understand you are frustrated with the situation and it puts you at personal risk but that is unfortunately the same problem we all face these days when you centralise a resource on one service where moderation is arbitrary (it really is). You're a sharecropper, much as I am on this forum. I risk arbitrary moderation (I think you or Simon nuked one of my comments the other day which was perfectly reasonable of you to do so ) and so do you on YT. There are no other providers with as many users or promotional ability as well and we helped build that machine.

What can we do? Well unless you decentralise everything then we're all shit out of luck, need to shut up and deal with it or build something better. I can't see that happening.

I'm out of ideas. You shut down idiots and that's it job done. If we see legitimate content being shut down we call it out. 

[EEVblog]

What can we do? Well unless you decentralise everything then we're all shit out of luck, need to shut up and deal with it or build something better. I can't see that happening.
I'm out of ideas. You shut down idiots and that's it job done. If we see legitimate content being shut down we call it out. 

Again, you want them shut down because you think they "idiots".
"Legitimate" content is shut down under the exact same political motivated T&S rules that shuts down the "idiots".
The fight should be against the political influence into T&S of a platform.

[bd139]

No I want them shut down because they are actually harmful and that is very easy to prove. Big difference.

Political influence is inevitable with corporate control. 

[EEVblog]

Political influence is inevitable with corporate control. 

The point is should not be when they receive public funds and protection under very specific legal rules because they are a platform. What they are doing is that of a role of a publisher, and by doing so they are violating the policy of the very specific legal protections they receive as a platform. The issue at stake here is vastly larger and more complex then it seems you are aware of.

[bd139]

I agree but I'm very well aware of what goes on in the eyes of the public and behind the scenes. I worked in a very senior position for one of the more incidious companies behind it all for a couple of years who were assisting in the feedback and reporting side of the "platform building" effort. It was entirely politically funded as were the appointed individuals. The idea was to create an untouchable, well funded ecosystem on which content could be shaped and they suceeded pretty well in their objectives. Even at regulatory level staff were swapped with sympathisers which is why there is no current stand against moving platforms to publisher status from a legal perspective. No one wants to touch it with a 6 foot long stick because it's career suicide.

But again what can you do other than walk away from the platform? And we're so tied into it from a marketing and revenue generation perspective the only thing we can do is take the hit. So I did. I turned down an offer from Google and took a position for 1/2 the salary for a company with an ethical stance.

[SerieZ]

So it was you who is to blame for this mess!  I am just joking ofc 

I have some trouble tho understanding this...
How you can talk about ethics when you want this guy and others deplatformed (instead of challenged) for wrong-think/say and not even by yourself but by leveraging someone stronger. I find that attitude on itself incredibly unethical.
While being Anecdotal I do understand your previous mentioned grief with a Family Member - I had some Family members being angry (Anarcho-? IDK)Communists their whole Life blaming everything on  our Family, Government, Capitalism... (of course that person was never the Problem) etc. etc. and while incredibly annoying never in my Life I would have wanted them stripped their rights to talk publicly or using a Platform to express their Ideas to be challenged.

[bd139]

Partially yes. It took a while to work out what was going on because we were comparmentalised. Many regrets there

I like to use an analogy of the soap box individuals in Cambridge city centre in the 1990s as an analogy. Back then you could go and listen, interact with them and heckle them if you wanted. There was mutual respect between the hecklers and the soap box folk. In fact we mostly drank in the same pubs afterwards and had a laugh and some serious discussions as well.

But now the platform allows the soap box hecklers to flick away people who challenge them. For example if we take Anthony Steele's channel he spent a long time heavily moderating the comments in response. This feature, implemented to get rid of the odd dickhead, leaves a monocultural echo chamber which is counter to the point of challenging ideas. All opposing discussion is removed. Followers form pockets of subscriptions and bad ideas (demonstrably) tend to amplify leading to all sorts of hell breaking loose.

Thus at the end of the day, someone has to take an executive decision on deplatforming eventually but far too late.  So ideally yes challenging them is a good idea (you'll find me challenging Anthony Steele's content repetitively until he deletes my comments) and is effective it's no good if the person you are challenging can evict the hecklers silently from the crowd.

The same is true of Question Time here in the UK and some of the screen time the BBC have given to balancing crackpottery without moderation. It leads to amplification. Then we have no choice but to deplatform.

Just a point on the family members, there was an incident where he actually caused harm to protect someone (my sister) from something irrational. I won't go into that here but stripping their rights is exactly what we do to people when we put them in prison for causing harm.

Edit: to add this is still way better than it used to be with moderated press and television being the only communication channels. But it's a long way from ideal yet.

[SerieZ]

Interesting Argument - however, I do not believe the solution lies in kicking off the Heckler but to not give them the ability to build an Echo-Chamber in the Comment Section.
I personally rather have a mess than go down the slippery-slope of (Silicone Valley Corporative) Authoritarianism. Especially as these people could not give less a shit about YOU but their own personal gain.

My personal story contact also caused harm and eventually went to Jail for it - does not change that dangerous Ideologies such as communism should be censored rather than challenged.

[bd139]

True. If you removed all the voting buttons from posts and disallowed people from removing comments it'd go a long way to fixing what is wrong. Perhaps that's the compromise somewhere in the middle. Accept the chaos in the order it occurred?

[thinkfat]

True. If you removed all the voting buttons from posts and disallowed people from removing comments it'd go a long way to fixing what is wrong. Perhaps that's the compromise somewhere in the middle. Accept the chaos in the order it occurred?

You'd still have the dickheads, the social bullies. If you can't get rid of those and can't tolerate them either, the alternative is to remove interaction with the audience from the platform entirely. Boy would that be boring.

[rsjsouza]

Just like I said at the time with Alex Jones et.al, on principle I do not agree with removing channels like this. Or any channel for that matter unless the actually promote physical violence.

Anyone who doesn't see the bigger picture here, be careful what you wish for.
Youtube and other social media platforms get various publicly funded benefits, and the benefit of being legally protected as a platform, yet they want their cake and to eat it to by acting as a publisher. This is not right.

I'm with Dave and against the double standards promoted by YT and other platforms such as Twitter. Someone saying something stupid in their video is no grounds for being booted, obviously as long as it does not promote harm. Idiots that create comments promoting violence are completely out of control from the publisher, especially in large channels - whackamole effect applies.

Also, how many people were threatened with violence (including Dave, by his own account IIRC) and could do very little to that effect?

The public space for discussion of ideas moved to these platforms and the fact they censor people can lead to regulation by FCC or other government agency. If I am not mistaken, there was a bill proposal on the house to set regulations to online platforms, but it didn't yet get traction. Of course YT, etc. don't want that, but are still treading this fine line.

[james_s]

I'm with Dave and against the double standards promoted by YT and other platforms such as Twitter. Someone saying something stupid in their video is no grounds for being booted, obviously as long as it does not promote harm. Idiots that create comments promoting violence are completely out of control from the publisher, especially in large channels - whackamole effect applies.

Also, how many people were threatened with violence (including Dave, by his own account IIRC) and could do very little to that effect?

The public space for discussion of ideas moved to these platforms and the fact they censor people can lead to regulation by FCC or other government agency. If I am not mistaken, there was a bill proposal on the house to set regulations to online platforms, but it didn't yet get traction. Of course YT, etc. don't want that, but are still treading this fine line.

People promoting conspiracy theories, anti-vax, etc DO promote harm. We've already seen significant resurgence of diseases like Measles and Polio which had been nearly eliminated before. It's important to stamp out these sort of things before they grow into giant self sustaining echo chambers.

[DimitriP]

Where there is no competition all bets are off.
Is there a #2 platfrom after youtube ?

[Wilksey]

Honestly, I find that Mark Steele chap a born entertainer, how he can keep that deadpan look when delivering those crackers is beyond me, the comments are comedy gold, better watch out for that 450V capacitor!

I highly recommend watching the videos just for a laugh when he tries to "explain" things, his background is apparently being a Geordie nutjob who shoots woman, or as he puts it "weapons expert", you can't argue with that logic!

That "5G" 868MHz monopole antenna that points up to the sky is a death ray - or was it a scanning radar - and the LEDs they are clearly lasers and the power supply is designed to melt your face off with it's 3300W! relay.  Wowzers! 

All of this "weaponry" in a street lamp, no wonder the company designing these "weapons" went bust with Inspector Steele on the case!

I don't think the content should be removed, I love watching the interviews and the long con game and how many people can get drawn in by the "truth".

One of Mr Steele's company Reevu products contains GPS  is this fool trying to kill people! 

[EEVblog]

Thunderf00t just released a video on this and made a good comparison between David Icke and faith healing ministers who claim to be able to cue cancer through pray, most likely killing or harming more people than David Icke's rantings ever would.
I bet you a million dollars that Youtube would never remove those minsters, the difference is it's politically expedient to remove the "conspiracy theorists". It's pure political agenda and virtue signaling on behalf of Youtube.

[rsjsouza]

I'm with Dave and against the double standards promoted by YT and other platforms such as Twitter. Someone saying something stupid in their video is no grounds for being booted, obviously as long as it does not promote harm. Idiots that create comments promoting violence are completely out of control from the publisher, especially in large channels - whackamole effect applies.

Also, how many people were threatened with violence (including Dave, by his own account IIRC) and could do very little to that effect?

The public space for discussion of ideas moved to these platforms and the fact they censor people can lead to regulation by FCC or other government agency. If I am not mistaken, there was a bill proposal on the house to set regulations to online platforms, but it didn't yet get traction. Of course YT, etc. don't want that, but are still treading this fine line.

People promoting conspiracy theories, anti-vax, etc DO promote harm. We've already seen significant resurgence of diseases like Measles and Polio which had been nearly eliminated before. It's important to stamp out these sort of things before they grow into giant self sustaining echo chambers.

The major problem here is the delegation of power to make the decision as to what is harmful and what is not. I won't bring medical issues to this thread (there are many other threads already) but the silencing of such voices in one place will not suppress them but instead make them boil in secrecy until they erupt. Challenging them in open space is still the best alternative.

[EEVblog]

Where there is no competition all bets are off.
Is there a #2 platfrom after youtube ?

There is Facebook, although if you are banned from Youtube you will almost certainly be banned form Facebook, Instagram and Twitter as well.
Alternatives are Library, Bitchute, Vimeo and Dailymotion, but those last two have almost zero native audience.

[EEVblog]

People promoting conspiracy theories, anti-vax, etc DO promote harm.

Why target just them?
Why not ban all the gun channels, vaping smoking and weed channels, religious faith healing channels (heck religion in general, or dare we say the big I word), extreme diet channels, heck any channel promoting bad food, channels promoting and celebrating obesity or depression, and I could on and on and on with dozens of examples of categories that "promote harm" in some way.
People are singling out those ones because they find them particularly personally offensive, or because it's current politics, with maybe some virtue signally thrown in.

[EEVblog]

True. If you removed all the voting buttons from posts and disallowed people from removing comments it'd go a long way to fixing what is wrong. Perhaps that's the compromise somewhere in the middle. Accept the chaos in the order it occurred?

You'd still have the dickheads, the social bullies. If you can't get rid of those and can't tolerate them either, the alternative is to remove interaction with the audience from the platform entirely. Boy would that be boring.

Youtube did that with kids content channels, their entire channels were nuked, no comments on any video. What were once thriving communities were instantly switched off.
If I upload a video and tick the "made for kids" box, that video instantly has comments removed and is demonetised.
I'd hate to be producing kids content now.

[james_s]

Thunderf00t just released a video on this and made a good comparison between David Icke and faith healing ministers who claim to be able to cue cancer through pray, most likely killing or harming more people than David Icke's rantings ever would.
I bet you a million dollars that Youtube would never remove those minsters, the difference is it's politically expedient to remove the "conspiracy theorists". It's pure political agenda and virtue signaling on behalf of Youtube.

I place them all in the same bucket and would absolutely boot the whole lot of them if it were up to me.

[EEVblog]

Thunderf00t just released a video on this and made a good comparison between David Icke and faith healing ministers who claim to be able to cue cancer through pray, most likely killing or harming more people than David Icke's rantings ever would.
I bet you a million dollars that Youtube would never remove those minsters, the difference is it's politically expedient to remove the "conspiracy theorists". It's pure political agenda and virtue signaling on behalf of Youtube.

I place them all in the same bucket and would absolutely boot the whole lot of them if it were up to me.

But where does it end? Like that (short) list I posted above. I'd bet that I could find something you were interested in that was potentially "harmful" to others.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

[james_s]

Thunderf00t just released a video on this and made a good comparison between David Icke and faith healing ministers who claim to be able to cue cancer through pray, most likely killing or harming more people than David Icke's rantings ever would.
I bet you a million dollars that Youtube would never remove those minsters, the difference is it's politically expedient to remove the "conspiracy theorists". It's pure political agenda and virtue signaling on behalf of Youtube.

I place them all in the same bucket and would absolutely boot the whole lot of them if it were up to me.

But where does it end? Like that (short) list I posted above. I'd bet that I could find something you were interested in that was potentially "harmful" to others.

I'm sure you could.

Perhaps drawing the line at things that are objectively true? Or at least prevent the careful curation of comments to prevent the silencing of any dissenting opinions and information? Or YT can just yank whatever YT wants because like this forum it's not a democracy.