YouTube deletes Trump video - for saying that Hydroxychloroquine is Effective in Combating the Virus

[ouch]

Are you arguing, using this editorial position taken by YouTube using editorial capriciously motivated actions, that YouTube is or is not a publisher?

It seems that a PLATFORM would not ban particular opinions, but rather allow all ideas and facts to be considered in the "Market Place of Ideas".

It seems obvious, also, that that this de facto publisher is using editorial actions to shape opinion by banning some thoughts and promoting others.

My educated guess would be that YouTube has taken a position of public safety over ideas for its readers. If I were to write on YouTube that I was a doctor and that it's recommended that children between the ages of 5-11 should drink at least 6 oz of bleach a day in order to clean their little nasty innards - how long does one think that YouTube would allow that message to remain on their platform and keep me around to post more dangerous information? Especially if Dr Me has a looong history of lying to the public. YouTube is showing responsibility to not allow a high profiled well known member to dangerously mislead readers/viewers that could cause serious health problems with the public.

 

[CLAX1911]

More odd that you seem to struggle with comprehension.

standard failed argument response.

 

[ouch]

standard failed argument response.

It was an obvious response to your nonsensical post.

Odd you don't take issue with platforms suppressing truth.

The only issue being contested here is Trump's YouTube video, in which I agree with YouTube for deleting. I'll let you be the watcher of all platforms and complain at you heart's desire.

 

[CLAX1911]

It was an obvious response to your nonsensical post.

idiotic response yes

 

[CaughtInThe]

Donald Trump doesn't care how many people he hurts. He's in it for himself and the money. He'll say anything.

 

[code1211]

My educated guess would be that YouTube has taken a position of public safety over ideas for its readers. If I were to write on YouTube that I was a doctor and that it's recommended that children between the ages of 5-11 should drink at least 6 oz of bleach a day in order to clean their little nasty innards - how long does one think that YouTube would allow that message to remain on their platform and keep me around to post more dangerous information? Especially if Dr Me has a looong history of lying to the public. YouTube is showing responsibility to not allow a high profiled well known member to dangerously mislead readers/viewers that could cause serious health problems with the public.

Accuracy and honesty are not the guides used by YouTube to either keep the post up or take it down.

Political preferences and bias are the guides.

As an example:

 

[Deuce]

It doesn’t matter what “randomized controlled trials” say, that’s theoretical stuff, when people are given HQQ they get better,

Conservatism, everyone. "It doesn't matter what the evidence says, I've decided on my own reality!"

Did you know that every single person surviving covid drinks water?

 

[Deuce]

Accuracy and honesty are not the guides used by YouTube to either keep the post up or take it down.

Political preferences and bias are the guides.

As an example:

Feel free to report this to youtube with specific parts that violate specific policies.

 

[code1211]

Feel free to report this to youtube with specific parts that violate specific policies.

Specific policies?

You must be dreaming.

Political ideologues make the rules as time moves forward to favor some and to punish others based only on political preference of the oligarchs running them.

As an example, can you imagine AT&T interrupting a conversation conducted on a party line in 1960, saying that the thoughts spoken are not allowed and then barring the caller from access to telephone communication.

Of course, that never happened because the telephone network, constructed and maintained by AT&T, was a platform, not a publisher.

Twitter and Facebook and YouTube are social media publishers operating today,
exercising editorial control over content,
using capriciously invented censorship rules which they ignore or enforce unfairly
to control access to the market place of ideas.

Why you support this unfair, corrupt and corrupting set up is beyond me.

 

[Deuce]

Specific policies?

You must be dreaming.

Political ideologues make the rules as time moves forward to favor some and to punish others based only on political preference of the oligarchs running them.

As an example, can you imagine AT&T interrupting a conversation conducted on a party line in 1960, saying that the thoughts spoken are not allowed and then barring the caller from access to telephone communication.

Of course, that never happened because the telephone network, constructed and maintained by AT&T, was a platform, not a publisher.

Twitter and Facebook and YouTube are social media publishers operating today,
exercising editorial control over content,
using capriciously invented censorship rules which they ignore or enforce unfairly
to control access to the market place of ideas.

Why you support this unfair, corrupt and corrupting set up is beyond me.

Here's why I support it:

Unmoderated platforms fail. Every time. They become cesspools of hatred, racism, bigotry, death threats, and spam of every sort but mostly porn. Just all the porn.

Your proposal doesn't turn Twitter into a free speech haven, it makes Twitter unusable. You are planning to destroy an entire industry because you're mad that conservatives are locked out for being shitty people.

 

[code1211]

Here's why I support it:

Unmoderated platforms fail. Every time. They become cesspools of hatred, racism, bigotry, death threats, and spam of every sort but mostly porn. Just all the porn.

Your proposal doesn't turn Twitter into a free speech haven, it makes Twitter unusable. You are planning to destroy an entire industry because you're mad that conservatives are locked out for being shitty people.

You know it, but you just don't see it.

You are gripped by an odd sort of self deception or shared delusion. Probably both.

Barring particular people from posting is not conducive to a wide range of ideas in the marketplace of ideas.

Your bias, prejudice and elitism are revealed in the blindness you describe, embrace, treasure and recommend.

 

[Luce]

You know it, but you just don't see it.

You are gripped by an odd sort of self deception or shared delusion. Probably both.

Barring particular people from posting is not conducive to a wide range of ideas in the marketplace of ideas.

Your bias, prejudice and elitism are revealed in the blindness you describe, embrace, treasure and recommend.

So you're mad that your snake oil salesmen are not getting the respect you feel they deserve?

 

[Deuce]

You know it, but you just don't see it.

You are gripped by an odd sort of self deception or shared delusion. Probably both.

Barring particular people from posting is not conducive to a wide range of ideas in the marketplace of ideas.

Your bias, prejudice and elitism are revealed in the blindness you describe, embrace, treasure and recommend.

So, you believe DP should never ban anyone for any reason? Even someone who just spams porn links or advertisements? Nonstop stream of racial slurs?

 

[rhinefire]

Any time any part of Trump is deleted makes this a better country.

 

[code1211]

So you're mad that your snake oil salesmen are not getting the respect you feel they deserve?

Respect? I don't care if any citizens are respected or despised.

Being given ACCESS is the only thing I desire. Rules should not be based on the opinions expressed, but only on the methods used to express them regarding word choices or profanity or obscenity.

Censorship based only on the opinion expressed being opposing to the platform's operators is not a reason to censor. This needs to be corrected.

Censorship, especially when done as it is being done right now, clearly exhibiting collusion between the Democrat Party, the Federal Government and the Social Media Platforms, is not ethical.

Any thinking person would have grave concerns over this.

Democrats are thus insulated from any realization or concern whatever.

 

[gino]

Censorship, especially when done as it is being done right now, clearly exhibiting collusion between the Democrat Party, the Federal Government and the Social Media Platforms, is not ethical.

A true liberal would be terrified by what is happening right now. It doesn't matter that it is happening to your "enemies". It sets a VERY bad precedent. And what goes around comes around...

 

[code1211]

So, you believe DP should never ban anyone for any reason? Even someone who just spams porn links or advertisements? Nonstop stream of racial slurs?

Ideas and thoughts that are expressed not using the idiocies you denote here are only ideas and thoughts.

Allowing the review of stupidities of stupid ideas and thoughts helps to expose how stupid they are.

Why do you so often make leaps to oddly, unrelated topics?

 

[Slartibartfast]

when people are given HQQ they get better, and soley because Trump said it that now has to get censored

 

[Northern Light]

The drug works as part of a combination therapy, not as a one off. This is how they are maintaining the lie of ineffectiveness.

Please don't accuse me of being a pro-Trumper or something. I can't stand the guy. I'm just saying that the FDA's determination about HQ was based on limited research and they have been refusing to do follow up combination studies when asked (practically begged) by the medical community. Other countries are using combos successfully, and some MDs in the U.S. are using combos despite what the FDA says, risking their licenses in the process to save their patients.

The FDA won't do the studies now because to admit they denied access to an early treatment method would mean they are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people (and they are).

 

[Luce]

Respect? I don't care if any citizens are respected or despised.

Being given ACCESS is the only thing I desire. Rules should not be based on the opinions expressed, but only on the methods used to express them regarding word choices or profanity or obscenity.

Censorship based only on the opinion expressed being opposing to the platform's operators is not a reason to censor. This needs to be corrected.

Censorship, especially when done as it is being done right now, clearly exhibiting collusion between the Democrat Party, the Federal Government and the Social Media Platforms, is not ethical.

Any thinking person would have grave concerns over this.

Democrats are thus insulated from any realization or concern whatever.

It's a private platform. They can say whatever then want, and you may or may not be given a chance to respond.

 

[gino]

It's a private platform. They can say whatever then want, and you may or may not be given a chance to respond.

You are correct. And you are wrong. That's what makes this an interesting situation. These tech giants have so much power that they are, in effect, agents of public policy. It could be argued that Google, Facebook, and Twitter are a giant monopoly that needs to be broken up. Legally, it is an interesting situation. Politically, it is a mess.

 

[code1211]

It's a private platform. They can say whatever then want, and you may or may not be given a chance to respond.

When the government and one of the major political parties colludes with these platforms to exclude some and include others using inconsistent, capricious rulings, it's not ethical.

 

[The AntiDonald]

And you want it pretend that everything Trump says it’s wrong, especially about medicine, no matter how many professional doctors from around the world will come out and say they have treated patients with hydroxychloroquine and they’ve recovered.

It has been shown that your stable genius operates on a 12 year old mentality. Some say younger. So thanks, but no thanks, I'll go with the known doctors and scientists.

I suppose there is a slight possibility that HCQ may have some benefit. In case you've been on Mars for the last 8 months, we have three vaccines that have been proven with millions of shots. Safe, Free, and widely available. The HCQ talk is just that, talk. Quack opinions.

 

[The AntiDonald]

When the government and one of the major political parties colludes with these platforms to exclude some and include others using inconsistent, capricious rulings, it's not ethical.

That's horse shit. When these platforms are allowing morons to post lies and bad information about life or death viruses, If I had my way, I'd shut the entire platform down.

People are intentionally lying and pumping bad information and making millions doing it. They are dangerous scum.

 

[The AntiDonald]

Specific policies?

You must be dreaming.

Political ideologues make the rules as time moves forward to favor some and to punish others based only on political preference of the oligarchs running them.

As an example, can you imagine AT&T interrupting a conversation conducted on a party line in 1960, saying that the thoughts spoken are not allowed and then barring the caller from access to telephone communication.

Of course, that never happened because the telephone network, constructed and maintained by AT&T, was a platform, not a publisher.

Twitter and Facebook and YouTube are social media publishers operating today,
exercising editorial control over content,
using capriciously invented censorship rules which they ignore or enforce unfairly
to control access to the market place of ideas.

Why you support this unfair, corrupt and corrupting set up is beyond me.

There is a huge difference between some crackpot telling someone over the phone a ridiculous lie and some idiot pumping lies for the entire world to read.

And isn't amazing how we got by just fine years ago without social media. It is amplifying most of the division in this country.