David Icke's Youtube channel deleted

[vodka]

Welcome to the Globalist Electronic Inquisition where if you want to express an idea , you have to loose all day for finding a word  not banned.

[EEVblog]

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?

Err, even scientific "truth" changes all the time, that's actually how science works.
Youtube are currently saying you can't say anything against the WHO guidelines or your video/channel will be deleted, but the WHO have been proven demonstrably wrong on more than one occasion.
That's just related to this threads topic, let alone countless others.
And many bat shit crazy "conspiracy theories" things have a kernel of truth to them. Take 5G for example, it's not untrue that it can cause humans issues, in fact it's demonstrably true, this is why safety limits exist. The devil of course is in all the practical detail.

Or at least prevent the careful curation of comments to prevent the silencing of any dissenting opinions and information?

What do you mean? Do you mean stop creators from moderating comments on their videos?
Technically that would be nice in some circumstances, like for example some batshit crazy crazy covid video could be comment ratioed to death so all anyone sees is "this is bullshit" comments that have 10,000 up votes that rise to the top.
On the flip side, the nutters can ratio it to the other extreme.

[Electro Detective]

Don't feel too sorry for Mr. Icke, unlike many of us in Midway 2020, chances are high he's got a lot of money stashed away for MANY rainy days ahead, 

leaving long time donating fans still waiting to reveal who the upright walking Reptilians actually are amongst us in the real world.. names, addresses, businesses etc
organized groups 'overseeing' most of the major internet watering holes,
as well as owning the entire 'www' via air money.

If we can believe his shared information, these sad demented souled out scaly creatures still dominate the Earth in the background, ever since the demise of the dinosaurs and MySpace,
with secretive networking and most likely controlling current major global events too. 

Shhh... we're not supposed to know = move along, nothing to read here 


OTOH: I reckon Icke has enough stashed away and may be negotiating to buy out Youtube!

Then he can claim Diety status again, and no one will dare post any conspiracy theory Youtubes exposing 'Him'

On the upside, if he buys a fair share of Youtube, he may restore payouts again,
so decent Youtubers won't solely rely on Patreon donations

i.e. don't be too nasty on DI, he or a mate or two may be members here. 


Trust no one, keep enemies and friends not close but far away,

if you're lucky they may do each other in, and leave you in peace 

 

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Mr. President says:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.

As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes.  It is essential to sustaining our democracy.

Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse.  Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.

Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias.

A step in the right direction, isn't it?

[MK14]

A step in the right direction, isn't it?

Fundamentally, there is the concept of "Freedom of the press".

Therefore, a presidential candidate Censoring/Messing-with/putting-pressure-on etc the press, is fundamentally breaking the "Freedom of the press" bit.

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

These days, youtube/facebook/twitter etc, probably count as modern day news sources (i.e. the press).

[rsjsouza]

Well, that's the problem. Youtube/FB/Twitter/etc. are not "press" as they do not (or should not) editorialize their content, but instead are considered "platforms" where they are not responsible for the contents created by their users (free speech).

However, some of their targeting, censoring and "fact checking" decisions put them in the spotlight and closer to traditional media, which has a series of regulations.

An article that covers the subject in a much better way than I could possibly do here in a few lines:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/esade/2020/02/10/should-social-media-platforms-be-regulated/#778dfd063370

[helius]

David Icke gets (rightly) jeered for his long standing, unironic commentary that powerful people are actually reptiles.
Meanwhile, many of those jeering also celebrate the 1988 film 'They Live", which depicts the powerful as vile aliens from Andromeda, unironically endorsing it as an accurate commentary on the real world. Something here doesn't quite add up.

[MK14]

Well, that's the problem. Youtube/FB/Twitter/etc. are not "press" as they do not (or should not) editorialize their content, but instead are considered "platforms" where they are not responsible for the contents created by their users (free speech).

However, some of their targeting, censoring and "fact checking" decisions put them in the spotlight and closer to traditional media, which has a series of regulations.

An article that covers the subject in a much better way than I could possibly do here in a few lines:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/esade/2020/02/10/should-social-media-platforms-be-regulated/#778dfd063370

Thanks for the explanation/article, I enjoyed reading it. I basically agree with it, they are NOT 'press' as such.

But the thing is, times are changing.
Let's go back 40 years, for a second. Politicians, would have advertised in actual news print newspapers.
Which had rules and regulations, to ensure the smooth running of things.
E.g. The politicians (in the West), could not readily create a dictatorship, by controlling the press. Hiding any/all bad stories about their party, and promoting, stories which were complete lies/fabrications, designed to sound believable, to make it look like their party was doing very well and is the best.

Roll forward to today. Take twitter as an example. Politician(s) {Leaving names out, to avoid making thread too political}, can use it as a "news paper like", platform. To get their messages around.
Therefore, if those politicians, were to use "executive orders", to gag the press twitter.
In real terms, they would be acting in a somewhat similar way, to defeat the "Freedom of the press's", concept/rules/laws.

E.g. Banning twitter from saying anything bad about a particular party/politician, under any circumstances.

In other words, it is undesirable for either twitter themselves to censor things (because they are too weakly regulated), or for politicians to censor twitter. Because they could use it to promote their own parties, even if what they say is completely untrue, and very misleading.

tl;dr
These are probably VERY deep areas of discussion. Potentially, with great importance to the way we live life, hence consequences.

To avoid sparking political discussion, I will not specify why. But think about what is going on at the moment, around the world. It is not a good time, for politics and/or social media/youtube etc, to potentially need updates to the way they work.

Clearly it is at least partly failing at the moment. With 5G masts being burnt down in some countries, because of social media misinformation, about unsubstantiated dangers of 5G.

[DimitriP]

The "press" from a practical point of view is "independent" as long as they don't have a contract with the paper company dictating what they can and cannot print.
Or the printing press company having a clause in the sale contract or lease on wha they can and cannot print.
Or the building owner dictating what they can and what they cannot print.
Or the advertizers who are also sensitive to what they do or do not print.
Finally we have the "owners" of the organization that may or may not have tight reigns and an opinion on what issues get discussed or not. But since they are too busy they delegate to editors in chief and whoever else to be "responsible" for that.

What if keyboards, screens, storage , cat cables, network switches and routers all have had some sort of clause on their intended usage?

How about clothes and shoes (you may not wear our clothes/boot/gloves/helmet) while working for a company that is not carbon neutral (as an example).
 
Enter the internet: All of the above conditions can easily be put into one of them "Terms of service" agreements".
Press "Accept" to continue.

What is needed is independent "platforms".
You can't go into a movie theater/ mall/statiup/park and start shouting stuff at people just because you have an audience.

You could try starting your own indpendent website, or blog to have an "independent" voice and all you have to worry is the service provider for your internet connection and hosting company.

...and we are back full circle to the beginning....

 

 

[EEVblog]

Well, that's the problem. Youtube/FB/Twitter/etc. are not "press" as they do not (or should not) editorialize their content, but instead are considered "platforms" where they are not responsible for the contents created by their users (free speech).
However, some of their targeting, censoring and "fact checking" decisions put them in the spotlight and closer to traditional media, which has a series of regulations.

The problem with Youtube, Facebook, twitter et.al is that they enjoy the legal protections of being a platform, but they often demonstrably act as publishers (and with an obvious extreme left wing modern SJW bias at that).
They shouldn't be able to have it both ways, but they get away with it under the disguise of Terms Of Service and their various "harassment" and "offensive" rules.
And those who shout "but they are private company, they can do anything they like" don't realise (or don't care) that these companies get government tax breaks and so effectively get public funding.
And they are also platforms of national political discourse importance, so important that the US supreme court ruled that they cannot delete Trumps tweets (and other politicians and public figures) for example, and political figures can't block people. Yet they are free to delete the ones from Joe Average.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/27/18761132/twitter-donald-trump-rules-violation-tweet-hide-remove-political-figures

[MK14]

The problem with Youtube, Facebook, twitter et.al is that they enjoy the legal protections of being a platform, but they often demonstrably act as publishers (and with an obvious extreme left wing modern SJW bias at that).
They shouldn't be able to have it both ways, but they get away with it under the disguise of Terms Of Service and their various "harassment" and "offensive" rules.
And those who shout "but they are private company, they can do anything they like" don't realise (or don't care) that these companies get government tax breaks and so effectively get public funding.
And they are also platforms of national political discourse importance, so important that the US supreme court ruled that they cannot delete Trumps tweets (and other politicians and public figures) for example, and political figures can't block people. Yet they are free to delete the ones from Joe Average.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/27/18761132/twitter-donald-trump-rules-violation-tweet-hide-remove-political-figures

This modern communications medium (Youtube/Facebook/Twitter/Internet etc), is a real can of worms. It is mind boggling, the number of ways it causes issues.

From political parties, conspiracy stories, Flat Earthers, Dodgy Technology, Solar Roadways, Anti-5G.
Sellers creating their own (bogus/glowing) reviews e.g. On Amazon.

I guess it is a sort of history repeating itself.

Analogy:
Go back in the past (Hypothetical only, some/all laws, may have already existed at that time, but let's pretend they didn't). The printing press has just been invented. So, people are creating Books, Posters and stuff. Completely freely.
There are no laws/rules/restrictions on what you can publish, or say. Even if it is blatant lies, and 'steals' someone else's ideas (no copyright).

So, presumably, sooner or later, legislation will come about, and hopefully control all these problems/issues.

In practice, I expect they will bring in legislation. But I expect it will do 2 major things:

(1) It WON'T solve the problem that it was designed to solve.
(2) It WILL cause many, major problems all on its own, some of which may be considerably worse than the problem it was originally designed to solve in the first place.

E.g. GDPR

Hence recent news:

Grandmother ordered to delete Facebook photos under GDPR

Of her own grandchildren!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52758787

tl;dr
New laws, feature creep, crazy outcomes, as a result.

[rsjsouza]

Regarding the grandmother news: it says there the mother had asked the grandmother to delete the photos many times, to no avail. If that is really what happened, I can see how this is fair to the mother, regardless of her motives. In my opinion, pictures of children are not public domain and the sole discretion to release them is left to the parents - and yes, there are parents that are idiots but so there are grandparents and relatives, to where you can send pictures in good faith only to see them splattered in the most unexpected places (I sent the pictures of your children in bath suits or taking a bath to ALL my friends).

[EEVblog]

The problem with Youtube, Facebook, twitter et.al is that they enjoy the legal protections of being a platform, but they often demonstrably act as publishers (and with an obvious extreme left wing modern SJW bias at that).
They shouldn't be able to have it both ways, but they get away with it under the disguise of Terms Of Service and their various "harassment" and "offensive" rules.
And those who shout "but they are private company, they can do anything they like" don't realise (or don't care) that these companies get government tax breaks and so effectively get public funding.
And they are also platforms of national political discourse importance, so important that the US supreme court ruled that they cannot delete Trumps tweets (and other politicians and public figures) for example, and political figures can't block people. Yet they are free to delete the ones from Joe Average.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/27/18761132/twitter-donald-trump-rules-violation-tweet-hide-remove-political-figures

This modern communications medium (Youtube/Facebook/Twitter/Internet etc), is a real can of worms. It is mind boggling, the number of ways it causes issues.
From political parties, conspiracy stories, Flat Earthers, Dodgy Technology, Solar Roadways, Anti-5G.

Twitter just took down the account of that bogus Anti 5G USB protection stick everyone is talking about.
Obviously I'm not going to shed a tear, but once again that open up a can of worms. Yes it's obviously a fake scam product, and when you take people's money with a scam you can say that obviously crosses a line. But then why are faith healers still on there? and astrologers, and psychics, and homeopathy along with countless other scams.
And what if they weren't taking people's money? Why shouldn't they be allowed to freely share information, regardless of how bogus it it.
The WHO is a classic example. You are taking down videos that go against the WHO guidelines, but just mere months ago the WHO were sharing now demonstrably bogus information themselves, and some of those banned were proven to be right.

[MK14]

Twitter just took down the account of that bogus Anti 5G USB protection stick everyone is talking about.
Obviously I'm not going to shed a tear, but once again that open up a can of worms. Yes it's obviously a fake scam product, and when you take people's money with a scam you can say that obviously crosses a line. But then why are faith healers still on there? and astrologers, and psychics, and homeopathy along with countless other scams.
And what if they weren't taking people's money? Why shouldn't they be allowed to freely share information, regardless of how bogus it it.
The WHO is a classic example. You are taking down videos that go against the WHO guidelines, but just mere months ago the WHO were sharing now demonstrably bogus information themselves, and some of those banned were proven to be right.

I very much agree with you!
But I'm NOT sure, what the solution(s), are going to be, going forward.

Let's assume, that 5G is 100% safe.
Nevertheless, it is perfectly reasonable, for there to be discussions, on how safe it is, and how it might be adversely affecting some people. Otherwise, science/engineering, would tend to never make any progress.

Real life example:
TV aerials, on peoples homes, are considered 100% safe (unless they fall and injure someone, or you fix it, with an unsteady ladder, and fall from a big height, etc).

But in practice, you can genuinely make statistical studies, which show considerable dangers from the TV aerials. Especially from e.g. 1970's.
But there were later studies, which explained these statistical effects, and it was nothing to do with any real dangers of TV aerials. Such as big increases in the risks of certain skin cancers.
E.g. In the 1970's, you tended to be middle class (well off financially), if you could afford a colour TV, at the time.
Hence you could afford to (from the UK), fly out to exotic foreign countries, and get lots of high sun (bathing) UV exposure.
Hence the real cause of the big increases in the rates of certain skin cancers, were likely to be the correlation between affording expensive colour TVs (in the 1970's, when they were very expensive), and affording luxury holidays abroad (which were also very expensive, relatively, at the time).

tl;dr
So 5G could indeed be causing certain problems, even if it is truly 100% safe. But there could be other factors, which are the real reason.
E.g. People who have/use 5G, don't bother to sleep adequately, because they use the high speed (5G) internet, all night, to enjoy watching/reading stuff. So the lack of sleep, could be the real reason why they are suffering health issues, (indirectly) from the new 5G.
So, such studies (dangers from 5G), might be how such issues (lack of sleep), are discovered, in the first place.

Which is why freedom of speech is so important.

I guess we have a horrible double edged sword situation here. There is an extremely thin line, between scams ($399 anti-5G devices), incorrect science (5G causes health issues) and proper 5G safety studies, which might find other factors (such as lack of sleep, due to too easy fast internet access), are the real causes of the health problems.

[bd139]

I think it’s fair to shut people down causing directly attributable harm and leave the rules at that.

[MK14]

Regarding the grandmother news: it says there the mother had asked the grandmother to delete the photos many times, to no avail. If that is really what happened, I can see how this is fair to the mother, regardless of her motives. In my opinion, pictures of children are not public domain and the sole discretion to release them is left to the parents - and yes, there are parents that are idiots but so there are grandparents and relatives, to where you can send pictures in good faith only to see them splattered in the most unexpected places (I sent the pictures of your children in bath suits or taking a bath to ALL my friends).

But there are significant dangers, such far reaching legislation, can end up causing terrible problems, all by itself.

E.g. A test case, decides that forum posts, must each confirm (every post, that is), that the poster owns the copyright to that post. So, every post you make, you have to fill in this fiddly pop-up thing, where you have to declare that you own the copyright, and can safely make the post, you also have to click/tick, to say you are over 18 years of age, etc etc.

If you think the example is too far, extreme, won't happen. Think again.

I forget which website it was. But a particular website (just simple browsing for me), brought up a GDPR related thingy. (Unlike the millions I have to keep on clicking, when I go to various websites, which already annoys me, and it is such a waste of time, 99.99% of the time).
It then demands that I fill in this many clickable/tickable boxes, form, before accessing their website. Until I have filled it in, it won't let me access the website. Because of the GDPR.

Sooner or later, GDPR, may make entire youtube channels, be taken off air. E.g. because of some content, which they claim authorisation, because someone photographed was under 18 years of age.
I think Dave, has already had vaguely similar problems. Something about demonetisation, if the audience is deemed to be under 18 years old (or something).

tl;dr
Although on the one hand, children's rights need protecting. It can be the thin-end of a wedge. With entire mediums, such as youtube, being significantly adversely affected, if we are not careful.
E.g. One day, all the images, on this (and other) forums, could be indirectly BANNED, with the forum IP blocked. Unless the copyrights of all images are proved to be owned/allowed for use on the forum.

[MK14]

I think it’s fair to shut people down causing directly attributable harm and leave the rules at that.

EDIT: You are right by the way, I agree. But my comment below, is to show what I think would happen in practice. I.e. a law starts out to protect against terrorism, then ends up allowing the Police to enter anyone's house and search it, for any reason they like. I.e. it removes our freedom/rights as individuals.

Which is why we still only pay 1 pence tax, per year, on just the single tax law of 1702 (I just made that up, to illustrate a point).
tl;dr
Feature creep, or whatever you want to call it.

[bd139]

I think it’s fair to shut people down causing directly attributable harm and leave the rules at that.

Which is why we still only pay 1 pence tax, per year, on just the single tax law of 1702 (I just made that up, to illustrate a point).
tl;dr
Feature creep, or whatever you want to call it.

If it’s the state you’re worried about, ignore the legal system as it doesn’t factor in.

If you’re worried about civil legal risk then that’s a good point.

[MK14]

If it’s the state you’re worried about, ignore the legal system as it doesn’t factor in.

If you’re worried about civil legal risk then that’s a good point.

You're right, I had already edited my post (at around the same time), as I realised it might cause confusion.
What you original said, and the original intent of the new laws, are good, true and nice 
But in practice, these things can end up gradually changing, and end up causing all sorts of problems, in the future.

EDIT: Analogy in feature creep.
I go back in a time machine, in the UK, and made King of Britain.
I then announce.
There will be this new thing called tax (taxation), and every citizen will pay 1 penny per year, into my King of Britain, fund.
Don't worry, no income tax, VAT (sales tax), or other taxes. No annual tax returns, etc.

[bd139]

Taxation was a good thing though really. It lead to protection, infrastructure and education. Prior to that it was mostly altruism which provided those services which wasn’t that effective as humans are mostly stingy pricks. Better that than having to fight off highwaymen at McDonald’s

Granted it could be a bit simpler.

Point is that all decisions made have positive and negative consequences. We like to promote the negative ones though while ignoring the positive outcomes which is what this entire thread seems to devolve into.

[MK14]

Taxation was a good thing though really. It lead to protection, infrastructure and education. Prior to that it was mostly altruism which provided those services which wasn’t that effective as humans are mostly stingy pricks. Better that than having to fight off highwaymen at McDonald’s

Granted it could be a bit simpler.

Point is that all decisions made have positive and negative consequences. We like to promote the negative ones though while ignoring the positive outcomes which is what this entire thread seems to devolve into.

You're right.
If there were zero taxes (including council taxes) in the UK, then there would be no,
NHS (free) hospitals
Police, fire brigade, army or Schools.

But GDPR, could allow politicians/EU etc, to slide in 'JUST' another tiny/slight amendment, which won't effect anyone.
Which then causes entire internet websites, youtube channels, and other things to end up being shut-down, as an indirect consequence, of that slight amendment.

E.g. Over-reaching copyright enforcement (and other, possible new rules). Which could cause many/most forums, and many youtube channels, to have to shut-down, in the future.

EDIT:  Example:
The GDRP has been terribly badly designed, it is awful in practice. I can't SHOUT about it on these forums, but I can TRY TOO!!!!!.
A half-computer competent or above person. Would know, that you should have a once and for-all, way of turning off those (horrible to me, and some others), GDPR pop-up messages, often insisting I confirm, about use of cookies.
It should have been designed, so that there is an easy way of just opting out (for ALL websites, in one go) of such nonsense. But there doesn't seem to be.
I.e. [X]...Setup-configuration..Webrowser - Signals to all websites, that this user is happy to receive cookies, WITHOUT a horrible pop-up, on every new website.

EDIT2:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2018/jul/05/what-should-i-do-about-all-the-gdpr-pop-ups-on-websites

Which { Ironically    }

Pops up with the following:

Your privacy
We and our partners use your information – collected through cookies and similar technologies – to improve your experience on our site, analyse how you use it and show you personalised advertising.

You can find out more in our privacy policy and cookie policy, and manage your consent at any time by going to ‘Privacy settings’ at the bottom of any page.

ShowInformation that may be used
ShowPurposes
I'm OK with thatOptions

[bd139]

Again trade off. 99% of the issues occur when marketing and financial companies utilise your data against your wishes. That’s where real damage comes from. But that is about your own data, not other people’s. So what’s the deal here?

Well I suppose people are going to complain when communities are damaged because users demand content is deleted. That’s their right to do so if they wish I suppose. If you want to withdraw from something why shouldn’t you?

As for destroying YouTube and communities via legislation I don’t think the GDPR or any extension of that is capable of doing so.

The key thing is really revenue control which is an issue and that will Self-destroy the platforms.  But that’s what happens when you’re a sharecropper on one platform only. Diversify or die is business 101.

Edit: harsh point really I want to add but I was going to run a YT channel for a bit but the economics weren’t viable. It was a short run proposition at best and the risk assessment was poor.

[EEVblog]

Twitter just took down the account of that bogus Anti 5G USB protection stick everyone is talking about.
Obviously I'm not going to shed a tear, but once again that open up a can of worms. Yes it's obviously a fake scam product, and when you take people's money with a scam you can say that obviously crosses a line. But then why are faith healers still on there? and astrologers, and psychics, and homeopathy along with countless other scams.
And what if they weren't taking people's money? Why shouldn't they be allowed to freely share information, regardless of how bogus it it.
The WHO is a classic example. You are taking down videos that go against the WHO guidelines, but just mere months ago the WHO were sharing now demonstrably bogus information themselves, and some of those banned were proven to be right.

I very much agree with you!
But I'm NOT sure, what the solution(s), are going to be, going forward.

Let's assume, that 5G is 100% safe.
Nevertheless, it is perfectly reasonable, for there to be discussions, on how safe it is, and how it might be adversely affecting some people. Otherwise, science/engineering, would tend to never make any progress.

Of course, and this is why there are standards and safety bodies covering this sort of stuff and have extended it to 5G, as I have pointed out in my 5G video.
It is wrong to stop discussion of this. The best counter to false information is education, not to block it.

I guess we have a horrible double edged sword situation here. There is an extremely thin line, between scams ($399 anti-5G devices), incorrect science (5G causes health issues) and proper 5G safety studies, which might find other factors (such as lack of sleep, due to too easy fast internet access), are the real causes of the health problems.

I'm happy to draw the line at scams that part people from their money for starters. But they'll never touch religious scams, because it (including all this COVID stuff) ultimately comes down to politics.

[EEVblog]

I think it’s fair to shut people down causing directly attributable harm and leave the rules at that.

That's a decent line, like monetary scams. I think few people would take issue with that, including almost absolute free-speech advocates like myself.
Of course many will argue that information like 5G scare tactics cause "harm" because it makes some people to nuts they go out an torch 5G towers.
I don't agree with that argument because a person has to take responsibility for their own physical actions like that.

[EEVblog]

Sooner or later, GDPR, may make entire youtube channels, be taken off air. E.g. because of some content, which they claim authorisation, because someone photographed was under 18 years of age.
I think Dave, has already had vaguely similar problems. Something about demonetisation, if the audience is deemed to be under 18 years old (or something).

That's not GDPR, it's COPPA, and it's 13yo kids. Everyone who uploads a video to Youtube has to check a box every time that ask if the video "directed at kids". If you select yes then your video is automatically demonetised and comments turned off, no exceptions.