David Icke's Youtube channel deleted

[MK14]

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.

I agree with you (and what BD139, said earlier, as regards banning scams). 

Ban/disallow outright SCAMs.

But allow other discussions, because EDUCATION, is a good way of improving all sorts of things, as well as this.

[EEVblog]

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?

Because you posted it on a public forum/website, and in the case of this forum, under terms and conditions that stipulate you posted to a public forum and cannot have the information removed just because you changed your mind.

[EEVblog]

The bottom line with this whole debate is, when is comes to information, there should be no arbiter of truth.
If you have an arbiter of truth, then you have taken the path to tyranny.
Therefore free speech on all platforms must be upheld.
The exception to free speech is calls to violence, which is not opinion or information.

[MK14]

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.

It is quite a complicated subject area. I had never heard of COPPA (I mean I had, but I'd forgotten, especially its name). But I have read about it (e.g. your thread or video about it, or similar, if I'm mixed up, then it would be another electronics related one).
But the name COPPA, didn't sink in.

From your various past threads/videos, it seems youtube, is rather a complicated minefield, as regards demonetisation and/or videos being taken down (spurious/malicious take down requests, mentioning the word 'Coronavirus', etc etc), and stuff like that.

When someone gets a significant amount of their annual money (earnings) from youtube. The fact that a breach, of these sometimes arbitrary (and possibly secretive) rules, could bring a particular video or even the entire channel, off-air. It is a significant worry, to some.
Maybe, youtube is too much of a monopoly, and there should be other, major players. But, I'm not really blaming youtube (Google and their parent company) here. It seems to be more, governments/EU to blame, maybe.
But in all fairness, many laws, including new ones, are needed, from time to time (as BD139 said, there are good and bad points about them).

[MK14]

Therefore free speech on all platforms must be upheld.

You're right, but it is being hurt.

E,g, The Thunderfoot youtube channel.

Which is being almost 100% of the time being demonitised and even being "blocked", by youtube.
So, it is still up on youtube, but I mean ("blocked"), as in, youtube removed it (silently), from searches and things.

Which is crazy. Because his videos, are usually, scientifically orientated, debunking, on current SCAM/fake-news/false-stories/bad-science things.

Such as false Coronavirus claims, dodgy medical test companies, false free energy machine claims, incorrect 5G is dangerous stories, flat-earth, etc etc.

tl;dr
Thunderfoot's downfall, is a significant failing in 'free speech'

[bd139]

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?

Because you posted it on a public forum/website, and in the case of this forum, under terms and conditions that stipulate you posted to a public forum and cannot have the information removed just because you changed your mind.

That's a matter of opinion, not fact unfortunately. You can't kill a statutory law with terms and conditions.

[rsjsouza]

Regarding the grandmother news: (...)

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

I understand that and agree that over extending legislation is dangerous, but unfortunately the precise measure of enforcement is only found by trial and error - after all, the internet went for quite some time unregulated and only in the past 10 (perhaps 15) years that some sort of enforcement started to be put in place. This will be bound by mistakes because it is so new (espacially with social media) and has no traditional boundaries of legislation.

BTW, in a perfect world such brawl between inlaws would never need to reach such drastic level, but in my opinion that is one example where this was used in favour of the "correct" outcome.

Which is being almost 100% of the time being demonitised and even being "blocked", by youtube.
So, it is still up on youtube, but I mean ("blocked"), as in, youtube removed it (silently), from searches and things.

Just to let you in into the modern term: this is called "shadow banning"

[MK14]

I understand that and agree that over extending legislation is dangerous, but unfortunately the precise measure of enforcement is only found by trial and error - after all, the internet went for quite some time unregulated and only in the past 10 (perhaps 15) years that some sort of enforcement started to be put in place. This will be bound by mistakes because it is so new (espacially with social media) and has no traditional boundaries of legislation.

BTW, in a perfect world such brawl between inlaws would never need to reach such drastic level, but in my opinion that is one example where this was used in favour of the "correct" outcome.

I agree. You are right. Laws do take time, to mature and become sensible. I am being somewhat over-critical, of these new laws.

Just to let you in into the modern term: this is called "shadow banning"

Thanks. That term is new to me (although I'd heard of the concept, and if I read that name, I hadn't remembered it).

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

[EEVblog]

Just to let you in into the modern term: this is called "shadow banning"

That's a tricky one actually.
Someone like Youtube for example, as a platform, should have no requirement to publicise (or monetise) content if they don't want to.
But when they do "shadow ban" content or a channel, that could be argued as being a form of "publishing".

[rsjsouza]

Just to let you in into the modern term: this is called "shadow banning"

That's a tricky one actually.
Someone like Youtube for example, as a platform, should have no requirement to publicise (or monetise) content if they don't want to.
But when they do "shadow ban" content or a channel, that could be argued as being a form of "publishing".

Yes, that is very muddy.

To see if a premise works well or not, I usually like to correlate the term "platform" to an actual and physical platform used for public discourse - it always comes to my mind a man speaking on top of a crater box in the middle of a public square.

I can't help but wonder if the shadow banning would be something along the lines of someone plastering their pamphlets or banners on top of others' banners to hide a speech scheduled to happen at a given date, for example. The dude in the crater box would be impacted by a lower audience, but is that illegal? It would be borderline illegal if the mayor (which is responsible to manage and maintain the square) is surreptitiously hiring or rallying its own allies to perform the act. 

Yes, I know it is very imperfect when compared to the electronic medium, but it works for my (crazy) mind.

[DimitriP]

I can't help but wonder if the shadow banning would be something along the lines of someone plastering their pamphlets or banners on top of others' banners to hide a speech scheduled to happen at a given date, for example. The dude in the crater box would be impacted by a lower audience, but is that illegal? It would be borderline illegal if the mayor (which is responsible to manage and maintain the square) is surreptitiously hiring or rallying its own allies to perform the act. 

Close but here is the fun part: It's not the city public square , instead it's the  walmart/tesco parking lot.

USENET seems to be the only "free" mechanicsm left  that is not subject to anything in particular.
Of course it uses an archaic interface, (email) and once you try to use it with a web interface provided by anyone else, you are suddenly subject or limited to which feeds and specific group "they" decided to carry and even potentially which posts within those groups. At that point you are back to square 1.5.


And here is the wikipedia link for our post dial-up and/or "AOL is the interent" era readers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet_newsgroup

[DrG]

The bottom line with this whole debate is, when is comes to information, there should be no arbiter of truth.
If you have an arbiter of truth, then you have taken the path to tyranny.
Therefore free speech on all platforms must be upheld.
The exception to free speech is calls to violence, which is not opinion or information.

When I first read this, my gut reaction was to counter the statements but I did not want to act reflexively. I acknowledge that there has been some thread drift.

After thinking about it for a while, I am responding, with the qualification that I know that I don’t have the answers. So many of us want Free Speech as the ideal and in the USA (and so many other countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country), it is a treasured ideal.

In my younger days, I would have agreed with your “tyranny” and your “arbiter of truth” conclusions.  I may not even have included the one exception that you included. But, I have changed over time, whether I like to admit it or not.

In the US, the arbiters of truth are certainly not the scientists or engineers; they are the judicial branch of government.
To illustrate, I looked at the exceptions to freedom of speech in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

I pretty much want every one of those exceptions to be in place. I don’t want to see kiddie porn all over the place, crime scene gore all over the place, people stealing other people’s works, violence incitement and threats, and yes, false statements. I don’t even want people to be allowed to scream (as a right), “active shooter” (replacing “fire”) in a crowded area, when there is none.

What I am saying is simply that I believe in Freedom of Speech and I also believe in a whole lot of restrictions.

What I am also saying is that I believe in a community standard and I do so knowing that, to some degree, those standards are both dynamic and subjective (e.g., poorly defined).  We had some good discussion about this earlier https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/the-future-of-online-discussion-how-do-you-see-it/msg2899818/#msg2899818

Who gets to decide on those restrictions? I’m ok with the SCOTUS, as long as I agree and yes, I know what I just typed.

But, what happens when we are talking about an international venue rather than a national one? We have not worked all that out yet and it may end up with the national restrictions in place for that place, or multinational restrictions in place through agreement.

Like I said, I don’t have the answers, but I am asking different questions now than I used to and, for better or worse, ageing [for me] has a way of turning the philosophical into the practical.

[EEVblog]

I pretty much want every one of those exceptions to be in place. I don’t want to see kiddie porn all over the place, crime scene gore all over the place, people stealing other people’s works, violence incitement and threats

All of those things are already illegal and covered under existing laws.

, and yes, false statements.

You do realise the extreme impracticality of this, right?

[DrG]

I pretty much want every one of those exceptions to be in place. I don’t want to see kiddie porn all over the place, crime scene gore all over the place, people stealing other people’s works, violence incitement and threats

All of those things are already illegal and covered under existing laws.

, and yes, false statements.

You do realise the extreme impracticality of this, right?

But, you see, the existing laws, ANY of them, can be found to be unconstitutional and, subsequently, they are stricken - they are no longer laws.

This can and does happen when a law has been found to violate Freedom of Speech. Here is a recent one https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1435_2co3.pdf A law in one of our states prohibited the wearing of political buttons inside a polling place (So much for my Alfred E. Neuman for President button). The SCOTUS found that it violated the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and *poof* no more law.

I am no lawyer, but there are lots of times (157 according to somewhere on some wiki something or other that I was reading at least I *think* that was the number) when the SCOTUS decided that the law is unconstitutional and then, it is no longer a law (abortion and school segregation are two big ones that lots of people know about).

So, you see, those existing laws are subject to the arbiter of truth, the SCOTUS. They can and have been struck down, including because they violated freedom of speech.

As I mentioned, I am talking about in the US and I don't claim to understand much about Australian law, but I see here that there are some similarities, but a lot of differences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Australia

As far as false statements and impracticality - well, yeah, it can be, but not always. The SCOTUS is finding their way...from the citation I included in my previous message:

"First, false statements of fact that are said with a "sufficiently culpable mental state" can be subject to civil or criminal liability.[14] Second, knowingly making a false statement of fact can almost always be punished. Libel and slander laws fall under this category. Third, negligently false statements of fact may lead to civil liability in some instances.[15] Lastly, some implicit statements of fact—those that have a "false factual connotation"—can also fall under this exception.[16][17]"

Yeah, it can make a lot of lawyers rich, but I don't think it is ok to sell table salt saying that it is a cure for cancer and then claim that that what I said is protected free speech. Same goes for saying that somebody murdered their family (and their family is still alive and well) and claim that it is protected free speech. I am glad that we have those restrictions to free speech.

[EEVblog]

I pretty much want every one of those exceptions to be in place. I don’t want to see kiddie porn all over the place, crime scene gore all over the place, people stealing other people’s works, violence incitement and threats

All of those things are already illegal and covered under existing laws.

, and yes, false statements.

You do realise the extreme impracticality of this, right?

But, you see, the existing laws, ANY of them, can be found to be unconstitutional and, subsequently, they are stricken - they are no longer laws.

This can and does happen when a law has been found to violate Freedom of Speech. Here is a recent one https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1435_2co3.pdf A law in one of our states prohibited the wearing of political buttons inside a polling place (So much for my Alfred E. Neuman for President button). The SCOTUS found that it violated the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and *poof* no more law.

Poor attempt at deflection. You mentioned child porn, copyright, and incitement to violence. All covered under existing laws and processes.
I'm done on this topic.

[DrG]

I pretty much want every one of those exceptions to be in place. I don’t want to see kiddie porn all over the place, crime scene gore all over the place, people stealing other people’s works, violence incitement and threats

All of those things are already illegal and covered under existing laws.

, and yes, false statements.

You do realise the extreme impracticality of this, right?

But, you see, the existing laws, ANY of them, can be found to be unconstitutional and, subsequently, they are stricken - they are no longer laws.

This can and does happen when a law has been found to violate Freedom of Speech. Here is a recent one https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1435_2co3.pdf A law in one of our states prohibited the wearing of political buttons inside a polling place (So much for my Alfred E. Neuman for President button). The SCOTUS found that it violated the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and *poof* no more law.

Poor attempt at deflection. You mentioned child porn, copyright, and incitement to violence. All covered under existing laws and processes.
I'm done on this topic.

I am not deflecting and I have no reason to deflect. You don't seem willing to understand that laws in the US can and are sometimes found to be unconstitutional, despite me repeating that several times and with citations and examples. Laws that exist in the US right now can, tomorrow, be determined to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS and they are then automatically removed from existence. No whining, no complaining, no appealing, no nothing - that's the way it has always worked in the US. The Judicial branch is the branch that interprets the laws (that's why I used your term as "arbiter of truth") and if they rule, in the highest court (SCOTUS), that ANY law violates the Constitution, it is stricken from existence. The Judicial branch does not pass laws, they interpret them.

SCOTUS has already ruled that that there are exceptions to free speech. Do you understand that? It is not a question of what you or I think regarding whether there should be restrictions to freedom of speech in the US.

The reason that they ruled on exceptions is because people challenged some laws as being in violation of their constitutionally guaranteed Freedom of Speech. Since they have ruled that there are exceptions to that freedom, you can't now claim that those particular laws, included or that follow from the exceptions, are violating your freedom of speech.

THAT process is why those other laws, the ones that you say that we already have and, therefore, don't need restrictions to freedom of speech, are still laws. That is why we have slander and libel laws - because you can't say or write anything that you want and claim that you are are simply exercising your constitutionally protected free speech. It is NOT simply because we have the slander and libel laws on the books, it is because the "arbiter of truth" has decided that there are restrictions to free speech and that those slander and libel laws are constitutional. If there were none of those restrictions to free speech then libel and slander laws would not be constitutional - how can you not see that?

Your contention that restrictions to freedom of speech, as decided by the arbiter of truth is the road to tyranny is great drama, but completely irrelevant. You can be sure of this much - those restrictions to freedom of speech in the US exist, whether you think they are needed or not.

Your irrationally stubborn insistence that since we already have a law on the books, we don't need a restriction to free speech even as I showed you a law that was on the books and was recently struck down as being in violation of freedom of speech and therefore unconstitutional. is mind numbing. You simply don't want to get it and I think that is the reason that you are done with the topic and that is a little disappointing.

[EEVblog]

Your irrationally stubborn insistence that since we already have a law on the books, we don't need a restriction to free speech

I have never said there should be absolute free speech without some restriction, do not misrepresent me.
I'm done, I won't debate it further.

[DrG]

Your irrationally stubborn insistence that since we already have a law on the books, we don't need a restriction to free speech

I have never said there should be absolute free speech without some restriction, do not misrepresent me.
I'm done, I won't debate it further.

You have stated that “The exception to free speech is calls to violence”. That statement appears in your quote that I included in my op in the thread. Later, when I mentioned a number of crimes, including violence incitements, you said that “All of those things are already illegal and covered under existing laws”. I can stipulate that you believe in the single exception to free speech of calls to violence. You have not mentioned any other exceptions, at least not in our discussion.

To the point, you clearly used the “we already have laws for that” against what I said…

“All of those things are already illegal and covered under existing laws”

“You mentioned child porn, copyright, and incitement to violence. All covered under existing laws and processes”

…and you did so in the context of exceptions to free speech. That is the point that I have been addressing.

To illustrate, if you have a constitutionally guaranteed freedom (freedom of speech) and you have, for example, a libel law, which one supersedes the other? If I have freedom of speech without exceptions (or with only a call to violence exception), then I can say whatever I want about someone else, no matter how false, defamatory or damaging (so long as it is not a call to violence, for example).

The libel law would be decided (by the arbiters of truth) to be unconstitutional because, in the US, the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech “wins” because it is part of the constitution of the country which “overrides” any law that is found to not adhere to the Constitution.

But, we do have libel laws and the reason that they exist is because the arbiters of truth have ruled that there are exceptions to freedom of speech (libel being one of many such exceptions). 

In my view, you have it completely backwards. The reason that you can say “All of those things are already illegal and covered under existing laws” and “You mentioned child porn, copyright, and incitement to violence.  All covered under existing laws and processes”, Is BECAUSE we have many exceptions to freedom of speech.

It is not the case that we don’t need to have [more] exceptions to freedom of speech since we have those laws. It is that we have those laws because we have many exceptions to freedom of speech. Again, as decided by the arbiters of truth – the SCOTUS who has interpreted constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech as having many exceptions.

It is not a trivial point, it is an important point. I understand that it is your site and I believe that you are an excellent EE and you make great videos and you clearly have significant skills as an educator. In this instance, however, you have it completely wrong. 

[SerieZ]

Where I believe you are going wrong with your thoughts is that SCOTUS is not an arbiter of TRUTH but an Interpreter of Law in regards of the Constitution as you yourself said and as it should be.
Laws and the Constitution is not an arbiter of Truth either, it is a ruleset. The only arbiters of truth in this system I can think of would be the Jury (which are people unrelated to government), not even the Judge is one.
(Careful: I am following from what I have read in this Thread and have little understanding of US Law)

These restrictions to Freedom of Speech mentioned are probably unconstitutional if you would follow the the whole Philosophy through and through.
We don't because some things are deemed so Immoral by our Society we ban them regardless. Remember: It is still people running this system and not machines - I would say for the better because those evils exist.

[rsjsouza]

(...)
These restrictions to Freedom of Speech mentioned are probably unconstitutional if you would follow the the whole Philosophy through and through.
We don't because some things are deemed so Immoral by our Society we ban them regardless. Remember: It is still people running this system and not machines - I would say for the better because those evils exist.

The "Philosophy" would be libertarianism and utilitarianism, which were never fully employed due to their potentially abhorrent consequences.

[SerieZ]

(...)
These restrictions to Freedom of Speech mentioned are probably unconstitutional if you would follow the the whole Philosophy through and through.
We don't because some things are deemed so Immoral by our Society we ban them regardless. Remember: It is still people running this system and not machines - I would say for the better because those evils exist.

The "Philosophy" would be libertarianism and utilitarianism, which were never fully employed due to their potentially abhorrent consequences.

  If asked I would call that whole thing some sort Idealism in absence of Authority and I know most types of Anarchists share this Ideas.
The sort of Idealism from Authority however has been tried out and History tells us a very clear story what this means for the Individual.

I do not understand why you put Philosophy in quotation marks however, did I use the Word wrong?