Slashdot Mirror


YouTube's New Moderators Mistakenly Pull Right-Wing Channels (bloomberg.com)

In December, said it would assign more than 10,000 people to moderate content in an attempt to curb its child exploitation problem. Today, Bloomberg reports that those new moderators mistakenly removed several videos and some channels from right-wing, pro-gun video producers and outlets in the midst of a nationwide debate on gun control. From the report: Some YouTube channels recently complained about their accounts being pulled entirely. On Wednesday, the Outline highlighted accounts, including Titus Frost, that were banned from the video site. Frost tweeted on Wednesday that a survivor of the shooting, David Hogg, is an actor. Jerome Corsi of right-wing conspiracy website Infowars said on Tuesday that YouTube had taken down one of his videos and disabled his live stream. Shutting entire channels would have marked a sweeping policy change for YouTube, which typically only removes channels in extreme circumstances and focuses most disciplinary action on specific videos. But YouTube said some content was taken down by mistake. The site didn't address specific cases and it's unclear if it meant to take action on the accounts of Frost and Corsi. "As we work to hire rapidly and ramp up our policy enforcement teams throughout 2018, newer members may misapply some of our policies resulting in mistaken removals," a YouTube spokeswoman wrote in an email. "We're continuing to enforce our existing policies regarding harmful and dangerous content, they have not changed. We'll reinstate any videos that were removed in error."

277 comments

  1. First! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First!

    1. Re:First! by Use+Crisco+in+Sodomy · · Score: 1

      At least say something about how Google is the new Microshaft. "Do no evil"--LOL!

      They also banned the Moon Man videos as "hate speech." The time is ripe for someone to replace YouTube. Especially on top of the demonetization scam as of late.

      --UCiS--

    2. Re:First! by msmash+(Top+Editor) · · Score: 0

      Infowars is hate speech

    3. Re:First! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moon Man is still on YouTube thankfully. What video did they ban?

    4. Re:First! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glibly stating that "Infowars is hate speech", is hate speech.

    5. Re:First! by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      I think of it as comedy.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    6. Re: First! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes! Anything that doesn't fit your liberal point of view is hate speech, including: voting for Trump, taking a picture with Pence after an internship at the Whitehouse, or buying chewing gum from a convenience store chain that hasn't come out publicly to say they would never allow NRA members to use their bathrooms.

    7. Re:First! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Infowars is hate speech

      There is no such thing as hate-speech....

      There is ONLY speech.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  2. They weren't mistaken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    About pulling right-wing channels. Just mistaken about which ones.

    1. Re: They weren't mistaken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh you poor, poor thing. Just stop fighting and embrace the 52%.

    2. Re:They weren't mistaken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Youtube pulled a lot of the top airgun channels (more than 20), whith hundreds of thousands of followers.
      Are airguns now evil? So that the people who plink paper targets at 25 or 50 yards are evil?

      Robert Kyncl of Youtube: Please Help Save Our Community

      URGENT APPEAL - Hoping Its Being Sorted. But Won't Remove Just In Case

      YouTube - PLEASE HELP SAVE OUR COMMUNITY

      Are Gun Channels in Jeopardy?

    3. Re: They weren't mistaken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are you completely crazy? You act like the airguns are like powder burners. Maybe yo want to confiscate the paintball guns also?
        And you talk about disarming the people so the government will make swat teams go away? Yo are stupid.

    4. Re: They weren't mistaken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, if there were zero guns there would be zero shootings, but that's impossible to achieve at this point. A gun ban ("buy back") wouldn't remove all guns, and hard criminals would snuggle in illegal guns from out of the country; this robs the 99.99% of Americans who are lawfull gun owners the ability to defend themselves when law enforcement are unable, or as we saw recently (to the best of my knowledge as if this post), unwilling to help.

      Removing guns will not work and we need a different solution to solve the horrible issue of mass shootings. What that solution is, I'm not sure, but I do know that removing rights isn't the way to do it.

    5. Re: They weren't mistaken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We could, however, remove computers. No computers, no computer crime. No internet, no cyberbullying. It's that simple, really.

    6. Re: They weren't mistaken by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      and hard criminals would snuggle in illegal guns from out of the country

      I've heard of gun lovers but snuggling with their guns sounds a little extreme. Exactly how hard are these criminals?

      --

      Enigma

    7. Re: They weren't mistaken by dpidcoe · · Score: 1

      Exactly how hard are these criminals?

      The exact answer to that depends on whether or not they're snuggling their guns at the time.

    8. Re:They weren't mistaken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then I'll just start killing people with knives, which are MUCH easier to get and make FAR less noise.

  3. (TM) by TPIRman · · Score: 1

    YouTube certainly trademarked the hell out of that email.

    1. Re:(TM) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posted from my iPhone (TM)

  4. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot's old moderators mistakenly pull server's plug

  5. Stop utilizing 3rd parties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seriously, just goto no ip dot com, setup your own website, point it at a tiny 35 dollar raspberry pi, then stream YOUR videos to YOUR hearts content.

    If you guys want to stop being the butt rape fun time of corporations then just stop being it. It is not hard, it is not expensive, and it is not difficult.

    You just want to show off your silly shit to the world in a way the other sheeple are doing so that your a special snowflake like the other 10 trillion special snowflakes, just stop for gods sakes. Have dignity ownership and responsibility.

    It boggles the mind just how absurd all of this is, people are utilizing these services to the point where they imagine using these things isn't just a right but a necessity.

    I cannot even....jesus wept...fucking hell...

    1. Re:Stop utilizing 3rd parties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much just this. People decided to make the big G their master. Do that and you canâ(TM)t really complain about them using the power you handed them.

      Self host. Itâ(TM)s the only way to go.

    2. Re: Stop utilizing 3rd parties by hobbes75 · · Score: 1

      I kind of agree with your message, but it seems you underestimate the bandwidth requirements of video streaming.

    3. Re: Stop utilizing 3rd parties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe you underestimate the lack of potential viewers and concern for quality video for said viewers. Just sayin', if you have to self host it's probably pretty much garbage.

    4. Re:Stop utilizing 3rd parties by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 0

      Seriously, just ... setup your own website, ... then stream YOUR videos to YOUR hearts content.

      Part of the point is to reach an audience outside the echo chamber. Most of them are looking at services like Google/YouTube, for searching and hosted content.

      If it/they are not being a fair player, making "the masses" aware that they need to look beyond is a prerequisite for getting them to do so. Thus griping like that in TFA.

      Related arguments apply to demonitizing. Getting any infrastructure in place for alternative content - let alone something with the necessary depth of coverage and economies of scale - again starts with making people aware that there's an unserved market.

      We saw the same when mainstream news execs thought the viewers were only after entertainment leading to the opening for the creation of CNN. We saw it again with mainstream news going full-bore left-wing (and CNN first doing the same and eventually literally selling out to them) creating the opening for Fox News. (I'm hoping that Fox News' turn to the Neocon side of the force leads to one or more tea-party/freedom caucus/libertarian news outlets.) Perhaps we'll see something similar with the politicization of these market leaders leading to more competition and a better-served populace.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    5. Re:Stop utilizing 3rd parties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But..but..but.....
      If I run my own streaming system, how do I get money for each click?

    6. Re:Stop utilizing 3rd parties by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      That's the genius of the plan!
      If only you pay yourself, you don't have to report it...
      Warning, revenue projections can be REALLY flat.

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    7. Re:Stop utilizing 3rd parties by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      You can do that, but you'll get a fraction of the audience. Youtube is more than just a place to store videos - it's also a place people find them.

    8. Re:Stop utilizing 3rd parties by ckatko · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Which is FUCKING HILARIOUS.

      Because someone DID JUST THAT.

      Voat.

      And you know what happened? They got DDoS'd for weeks (if not months). And when THAT didn't stop it? They posted child porn, and then called their ISP and said "Look, you're hosting a child porn website."

      Yeah. All of those people who say "Start your own" are straight up liars. They don't want you to move... they want to "deplatform" you. A literal term, coined by the left. Once the PLATFORM changes? _They go after the next platform._

      They don't even hide it anymore. Look at this one. Where they want their readers to harass any company that supports the NRA, and keep a constant update of who is still holding out, and who has collapsed:

      https://thinkprogress.org/corp...

    9. Re:Stop utilizing 3rd parties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree and don't understand why you've been modded troll. Don't use these "free" 3rd party sites if you don't 100% agree with their ridiculous EULAs. Oh, and before I forget, you need to actually read the EULA, you'll be surprised...

    10. Re:Stop utilizing 3rd parties by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or look at Daily Stormer. They had their own website and it was pulled. They got another website and that was pulled. Their domain name has been seized.

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

      Now I don't like Andrew Anglin one bit but the argument 'if you don't like how Google run their platform, get your own' is dishonest. If all the tech companies discriminate in the same way what you've got is something much more analogous to the pre civil rights era were all businesses in an area refused to serve black people than a normal free market where you can always get service somewhere.

      Now historically there's certain amount of irony here. Andrew Anglin is a white supremacist who'd have supported the right of all businesses in an area to discriminate against a race to the point that race could not get service. However he opposes that happening to him. Meanwhile the left now claims to have always opposed discrimination on the grounds of race. That's not quite accurate though - the KKK was a Democrat organisation opposed by the Republicans.

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

      Although there was little organizational structure above the local level, similar groups rose across the South and adopted the same name and methods. Klan groups spread throughout the South as an insurgent movement promoting resistance and white supremacy during the Reconstruction Era. For example, Confederate veteran John W. Morton founded a chapter in Nashville, Tennessee. As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans. In 1870 and 1871, the federal government passed the Enforcement Acts, which were intended to prosecute and suppress Klan crimes.

      The first Klan had mixed results in terms of achieving its objectives. It seriously weakened the black political establishment through its use of assassinations and threats of violence; it drove some people out of politics. On the other hand, it caused a sharp backlash, with passage of federal laws that historian Eric Foner says were a success in terms of "restoring order, reinvigorating the morale of Southern Republicans, and enabling blacks to exercise their rights as citizens". Historian George C. Rable argues that the Klan was a political failure and therefore was discarded by the Democratic leaders of the South. He says:

      the Klan declined in strength in part because of internal weaknesses; its lack of central organization and the failure of its leaders to control criminal elements and sadists. More fundamentally, it declined because it failed to achieve its central objective -- the overthrow of Republican state governments in the South.

      After the Klan was suppressed, similar insurgent paramilitary groups arose that were explicitly directed at suppressing Republican voting and turning Republicans out of office: the White League, which started in Louisiana in 1874; and the Red Shirts, which started in Mississippi and developed chapters in the Carolinas. For instance, the Red Shirts are credited with helping elect Wade Hampton as governor in South Carolina. They were described as acting as the military arm of the Democratic Party and are attributed with helping white Democrats regain control of state legislatures throughout the South. In addition, there were thousands of Confederate veterans in what were called rifle clubs.

      Jim Crow laws were a response to the Republican imposed reconstruction era regime.

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

      Jim Crow laws were state and local laws that enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States. Enacted by white Democratic-dominated state legisl

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    11. Re:Stop utilizing 3rd parties by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      Why is this marked Troll?
      A lot of Silicon Valley companies have convinced themselves that they run some sort of civic space where all "viewpoints" must be tolerated long past the point where cops in a public square would have been busting heads.
      It's a private company in an unregulated market. None of your tax dollars go to it, your First Amendment rights do not trump their own, and alternatives to them are available. It's their right and in their interests to maintain a proper signal-to-noise ratio. Believe it or not, people stop visiting web sites when they begin to resemble landfills, so it's in the site's interest to purge you if you upload horseshit.
      If you don't like Twitter, move to Gab- a site where I would naturally expect to get kicked off. If Youtube deletes your video, upload it somewhere else. If you don't like it, deprive it of your content and see if anyone cares enough to follow you.

    12. Re: Stop utilizing 3rd parties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a point, but I think it's good to make their censorious behavior as,blatantly public ad possible.

    13. Re:Stop utilizing 3rd parties by edtice1559 · · Score: 0, Troll
      This post (despite it being modded up) is the quintessential example of why we aren't going to have credible conservative voices in this country for a long time.

      It suffers from multiple basic failures of reasoning in an attempt to make an emotional appeal that doesn't hold water.

      Good policy is not defined by what parties advocate for it. The fact that the Democratic party was historically infused with terrible racism in no way excuses the Republican party from embracing it today. Now Republicans aren't the only voice for conservatism and admittedly not even a good one. But as long as conservatism and the toxic Republican party are intertwined, there really is no way to advocate for conservative positions without stepping on a landmine. It's not okay for either party to embrace racism and keeping score of past wrongs may be interesting but isn't a mechanism to guide current thinking. Instead we should look for sound policy.

      Comparing consequences of having unpopular viewpoints with genuine discrimination is a perfect example of fallacy. Youtube does not discriminate against conservatives. They're welcome to use the same platform as everybody else. Conservatives can share their cat videos. They demonstrate proper lightbulb changing techniques. Welcome to setup a thousand dominoes and show a video of them falling down. In short, conservatives can use Youtube the same as everybody else. Nobody asks for your political viewpoints when you sign up.

      A fast food restaurant isn't discriminating against homeless if they don't allow those people to panhandle on the premises. They are discriminating if they refuse to sell the homeless person (who has the money) a hamburger. Likewise, they aren't discriminating against me if they refuse to let me stand in the middle of the restaurant with a bullhorn shouting profanities.

      Indeed, if a business refused to do business with someone simply because that person was racist, there may be an argument about discrimination. But if they refuse to serve a customer because that person is engaging in a racist tirade, that's not discrimination.

      "Conservatives" seem to think they should be able to behave however they want and associate with whatever unsavory characters they desire and not suffer an consequences. So much for "personal responsibility."

      In short, a person can't control their gender, race, or a variety of other factors which is why those are protected statuses. A person can control their behavior which is why it's okay for a business to refuse to serve those who won't behave in ways compatible with the business. Those two are as different as night and day. But it's exactly these two that the parent conflates. Too bad there isn't a -1 Propaganda mod.

    14. Re:Stop utilizing 3rd parties by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      It is not hard, it is not expensive, and it is not difficult.

      Yes and no. If you have the skill set and resources (i.e. high bandwidth) then having your own video site is great. I admit I have a youtube channel for my videos because I don't have the skill to build a site to host videos, a friend worked on setting up a site to have videos (tons of work, constantly being jerked around on bandwidth and storage space) and with low viewership it wasn't worth it. Some of my youtube videos have 10,000 views, others about 20. I was given opportunity to get money per view (I declined since these are either for non-profit activities or clips from favorite movies), I didn't miss much when YT demonetized most people.

      I have had some videos taken down because music track in background, I found it interesting it was done by some oddball outfit that somehow gets ownership to manage music tracks. But few months later it reappears. I must have some boring videos because I haven't been caught up in all these takedown raids that have been going on the past year.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    15. Re:Stop utilizing 3rd parties by Samurai+Nigel · · Score: 1

      I wish I had the mod points today to upvote the shit out of this.

      Bravo, sir.

    16. Re:Stop utilizing 3rd parties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that the Democratic party was historically infused with terrible racism in no way excuses the Republican party from embracing it today.

      The Republicans do not embrace racism today. I'm not going to read any more of your lies.

    17. Re:Stop utilizing 3rd parties by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      Well we both got modded down, so I guess it's one of those days.

    18. Re:Stop utilizing 3rd parties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't want you to move... they want to "deplatform" you. A literal term, coined by the left. Once the PLATFORM changes? _They go after the next platform.

      We don't want to deplatform you, we want to end your miserable fucking existence for the benefit of humanity. Stop over-complicating things!

  6. Whoops! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I can't possibly imagine how that happened!

  7. The mistake was going after Alex Jones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Big Tech needs to stop the tortious interference or Congress is going to pass anti-censorship laws

    1. Re: The mistake was going after Alex Jones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Private owned company, no such thing as free speech, but you should know that you snowflake.

    2. Re: The mistake was going after Alex Jones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capitalist running dogs sure do hate freedom of speech.

    3. Re: The mistake was going after Alex Jones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capitalist running dogs sure do hate freedom of speech.

      That's their God given right, entrenched in the US constitution.

      Why do you hate America do much?

    4. Re: The mistake was going after Alex Jones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, you say that, but when Google controls the narrative and buys congresscritters, the difference between Google's censorship and federal censorship becomes meaningless.

    5. Re: The mistake was going after Alex Jones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because amurica pokes its stupid nose into other people's business without second thought?

    6. Re: The mistake was going after Alex Jones by eclectro · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Google et al that owns youtube is a public corporation. While it may set the rules for how its site is used, that does not place it beyond long overdue anti-trust examination.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    7. Re:The mistake was going after Alex Jones by iamhassi · · Score: 0

      Big Tech needs to stop the tortious interference or Congress is going to pass anti-censorship laws

      Alex Jones is big enough he could start his own YouTube, google, Facebook and twitter. Why conservatives keep giving liberals that hate them money by staying on their platforms is beyond me. If I were him I'd announce my own apps and invite all the other conservative leaders with large groups of followers. You call me a snowflake, but then ask me to subscribe. That doesn't make sense.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    8. Re: The mistake was going after Alex Jones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are just trying to make the world free for democracy. Those that do not subscribe to our definition of good should naturally be destroyed. This is how all strong countries act. Of coarse the USA is no longer very strong, so you now have China making the world in their image. Better get on the band wagon and start hating the Chinese. That is of coarse assuming your not Chinese. If you Chinese, congratulations, now rule the world and destroy those who thing incorrectly.

    9. Re: The mistake was going after Alex Jones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bake me a cake, biggot!

    10. Re: The mistake was going after Alex Jones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He talked about opening conservative video server resently.

    11. Re: The mistake was going after Alex Jones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Of coarse the USA is no longer very strong
      the usa spends more on their military than the next 10 combined. how is that not enough ?????

    12. Re:The mistake was going after Alex Jones by nospam007 · · Score: 0

      "Big Tech needs to stop the tortious interference or Congress is going to pass anti-censorship laws"

      It's only censorship when the government does it.

      You wouldn't want a law that forbids you to do something about me putting a Bernie billboard in your front-yard, wouldn't you?

    13. Re: The mistake was going after Alex Jones by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, you say that, but when Google controls the narrative and buys congresscritters, the difference between Google's censorship and federal censorship becomes meaningless.

      That works both ways. Congresscritters (and governments in Europe) are increasingly leaning on social media behemoths to curb hate speech and "fake news". Which is more than a little bit scary. What is "fake"? Recently some EU task force accused a couple of newspapers and websites of spreading fake news. In a few cases they retracted the accusation, but not until the websites themselves pointed out the articles in question were wholly factual, and threatened legal action. I really don't want that sort of stuff going on behind the scenes, where websites might not even know they were cut from the news feeds and penalized in page rankings.

      There's much talk these days about the influence of large social media companies. But if these companies can be called upon to fight "fake news", by the same token they can be called upon to uphold principles of free speech. I am in favour of applying some additional "common carrier"-like rules to the larger social media sites, not to enforce censorship but to prevent it. When these companies grow to a certain size, they should be considered a "public space" and forced to offer their services indiscriminately... just like many other services are. And to be clear, in my country "indiscriminately" by law doesn't just mean race or gender or religion, it also applies to political conviction.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    14. Re: The mistake was going after Alex Jones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should newspapers or website owners be able to sue an EU task force? Authorities must be shielded from this kind of private abuse or they will never be effective. When European authorities speak, you shut up and obey or face dire consequences. And that's all there is to it.

  8. Incompetence by rossz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.

    However, this isn't the first time youtube has screwed up like this.

    Why the hell are they allowing obviously untrained people the power to wipe out entire channels on a whim?

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
    1. Re:Incompetence by pots · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why the hell are they allowing obviously untrained people the power to wipe out entire channels on a whim?

      No one said "on a whim" but, from the summary, there are more than 10,000 people newly assigned to moderate. Are you seriously expecting them to all be experts who never make mistakes? Since the videos/channels were reinstated, it looks like they've implemented some sort of review or appeals process. This is an improvement over how things used to be.

      It doesn't even sound like much of a mistake, the article says that the mentioned channels were pretty much all conspiracy theorist / fake news people. It's just a couple of videos that Youtube reinstated.

    2. Re:Incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you really say that firearms are not a problem for children in the US?

    3. Re:Incompetence by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can you really say that firearms are not a problem for children in the US?

      Not NEARLY as much of a problem (in terms of injuries and deaths) as, say, cars. So why do we have YouTube wiping out channels that demonstrate things like safe gun handling at the range, while leaving up channels that highlight reckless driving? Because the people doing it are doing it for political reasons, period.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:Incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's malice. Only an imbecile would believe otherwise. There is an established industry response and they've made it clear they hate facts, science, and conservatives, and they will do anything to censor them. According to Twitter, all conservatives are Russian bots. Sadly, that's not even a sick joke....or even a bad joke.

    5. Re:Incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the hell are they allowing obviously untrained people the power to wipe out entire channels on a whim?

      So they can claim it was a "mistake" when it was in fact quite deliberate.

      You should watch the film "Wag the Dog" at your earliest opportunity. It should give you a new perspective on what you are willing to blindly accept as "news".

    6. Re: Incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Statistically a child is 20 times more likely to die in a car accident, and even that is very rare in the US. More if you subtract 26% of gun deaths are single death suicides. The problem is that defensive rights of law abiding citizens are being seized in the name of saving the children, when the problem is one of mental health and school/police criminal negligence in stopping this creep. You canâ(TM)t fail a background check if no one declares a crime occurred; garbage in garbage out.

    7. Re:Incompetence by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why the hell are they allowing obviously untrained people the power to wipe out entire channels on a whim?

      Who the Hell would apply for a job as a YouTube political correctness moderator anyway? Well, folks who can't argue their political standpoints, and must resort to censorship, when the intellectual backing of their own convictions fail, and silencing their opponent by force is their only option.

      It's just not a real job.

      If anything should be eliminated by AI and automation, it's this. Removing human bias from the system would silence critics on both sides of the political spectrum.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    8. Re:Incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Nah, whats 17 dead kids compared to your right to be a fucking moron with a gun.
      Reality is, these mass school shooting virtually only happen in the US because of a stupid 200 year old rule that simply doesnt work in the modern world.
      I am no less free if I dont own a gun, and all the other excuses boil down to tiny dick ammosexual bullshit.

    9. Re:Incompetence by civilwaradvocate · · Score: 1

      Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.

      You have that completely backwards in the context of government and big business.

      Ignore context and history

      Everything is okay, mistakes happen, don't try to find out why, just stop complaining

      Who cares, they were nut jobs, we did nature a favor by euthanizing their discourse, trust me, I'm GOD, I'm right, but don't ask me to describe my philosophy or reasoning, you are a but a simple mortal

      It's their private property they can do what they want, it's irrelevant that the platform is a public place

      Rules are rules

      The Shire needs to be scoured.

    10. Re:Incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Mistakenly" yeah right

    11. Re:Incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > review or appeals process

      I take it you've never requested an appeal on youtube yourself.

    12. Re:Incompetence by iamhassi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Can you really say that firearms are not a problem for children in the US?

      Yes. While homocide is the 2nd leading cause of death for 15-24 yr olds, 3/4ths of that is gang violence, so they are partially responsible for their own homocide by choosing to become involved with a gang. And number of homocide deaths is almost tied with number of suicide deaths, which means teens and equality as likely to choose suicide as they are likely to be killed.

      Either way we are talking about a few thousand a year compared to tens of millions of children so I can honestly say yes, firearms are not a problem.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    13. Re:Incompetence by eclectro · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Repeated instances of "incompetence" start to form a trend-line towards malice. The number of right wing/conservative demonetization, strikes, deletions, limited state, and channel termination is becoming vast. All the while ignoring channels on the left.

      Currently, all the redpill/MGTOW channels have been hit hard with many channels being outright terminated and not returning evidently.

      Youtube has brought forth a heavy hand, and it's not a question of how much incompetence there is, but a question of how much they can get away with at any one time.

      Here's what Pat Condell had to say about the recent spat of censorship.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    14. Re:Incompetence by iamhassi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nah, whats 17 dead kids compared to your right to be a fucking moron with a gun.

      You're right, what's 17 dead kids compared to our right to bear arms? Nothing. The right to bear arms is more important than a few lives.

      Besides, if we ban guns it would just be easier to get them. Drugs are ban and I can get illegal drugs much easier than getting a doctor's prescription.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    15. Re:Incompetence by execthis · · Score: 2

      My guess is the 10,000 people are in somewhere like India or the Philippines. (More great Silicon Valley goodness.)

      It's unrealistic to expect people from many parts of the world to comprehend much less uphold basic freedoms which are implicitly understood and taken for granted in Western European countries.

      It's one thing to have them attempt to handle your customer support call, another when they're entrusted with responsibility over something which is lacking in their own culture.

    16. Re:Incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >our right to bear arms?
      kids and mentally unstable people ?

    17. Re:Incompetence by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      a big bunch of hobby channels got removed.

      they were just removing stuff because their job is removing stuff, pretty much. I reckon they had put them on a quota.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    18. Re:Incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even though the FBI says hammers and other blunt objects kill more people than rifles, we should at least ban rifles because that's easier than banning tools.

    19. Re:Incompetence by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Who the Hell would apply for a job as a YouTube political correctness moderator anyway?

      People who like money?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    20. Re:Incompetence by CSMoran · · Score: 1

      Are the numbers for heterocide similar?

      --
      Every end has half a stick.
    21. Re:Incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, whats 17 dead kids compared to your right to be a fucking moron with a gun.

      You're right, what's 17 dead kids compared to our right to bear arms? Nothing. The right to bear arms is more important than a few lives.

      This is marked troll, but at least someone is stating a value. Either our right to bear arms is worth all the deaths or it is not. I say not. I also say that any politician that supports the right to bear arms without limits but doesn't admit that this is the value he gives that right is either a lying sack of shit or just too stupid to represent anyone.

      Besides, if we ban guns it would just be easier to get them. Drugs are ban and I can get illegal drugs much easier than getting a doctor's prescription.

      Banning guns and taking reasonable measures to eliminate all the ones here, including all the ammo, would, over time, make guns less available. There would be fewer gun deaths. Sure some would be imported illegally, but not as many. At least that is the way it has worked everyone else on the planet....

      I really don't see how people keep making these arguments that if we "ban X" only criminals will have "X" as if banning "X" would have no effect whatsoever. It just isn't true. The existing backlog can be worked through if you are willing to do so.

      The reason not to ban guns in any way is because people believe that all the gun deaths are worth it. They believe that it is better for children to fear school shootings and prepare for them, than to take any action that might reduce the risk in any way shape or form. They see someone suggesting raising the age limit as the same as taking away all guns and such. It isn't true, but that is how they see it.

      As far as zapping right wing propaganda. That is harder. At minimum I would think moderates could add their own fact checking to the videos, say somewhere unskippable. The fact checks should also link to legitimate sources of news and information..

      If wikipedia can keep their content in pretty good shape, truth wise, then youtube can as well, by at least making sure people who view propaganda also must watch the debunking of it.

    22. Re: Incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I look forward to the world moving on without your stupid cuntry and people... if only it wasnt the chinks taking over.

      Keep being woke! Youre fighting the REAL war bro!!

    23. Re: Incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing you got all those kids shooting other kids to serve as opportunities for your heroes to show themselves, or yould be like your boring neighbors to the north and have a bunch of live children. Dead Americans kidd are the best!

    24. Re: Incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nowhere near as bad as they were in mainland China. People quickly forget why Japan didn't take California.

    25. Re:Incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, what's 17 dead kids compared to our right to bear arms? Nothing. The right to bear arms is more important than a few lives.

      Statements such as those would come off as more genuine if you preached six times as much about banning alcohol, as it kills six times as many innocent people.

      What is 90,000 lives a year compared to our right to have a beer on Sunday?

      The problem in Europe is even worse with 285,000 a year dying to nothing but a flavored poison.

    26. Re: Incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they hate yer freedumbs!! Quick.. get yer guns and declare war on Youtube, that'll fix it just like you did Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc etc..

    27. Re:Incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Attribute to malice:

      http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/27/google-youtube-southern-poverty-law-center-censorship/

    28. Re:Incompetence by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      obviously untrained

      There is a staggeringly huge gap between an "obviously untrained" employee, and what you seem to be after: the "theoretically perfect" employee. Key part there is the theoretical. This is a process where humans judge. They will never be perfect, and mistakes do not make them "obviously untrained".

    29. Re:Incompetence by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Currently, all the redpill/MGTOW channels have been hit hard with many channels being outright terminated and not returning evidently.

      The dumb thing is that most people in my experience don't find MGTOW/Red Pill a particular compelling viewpoint - they've always seemed to me to be a mirror of the radical feminists and just as bonkers. Both groups are telling young people not to have long term relationships with the opposite sex, and that comes across as something you believe before you've had any good relationships and quietly discard later.

      Still ban them and it seems like they'll acquire a cachet that they wouldn't have acquired from their arguments. Now I don't think more people becoming MGTOW, Red Pill or radical feminists is going to lead to the death of civilisation but it certainly won't help with society polarising into left and right. Which is an issue.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    30. Re:Incompetence by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      What about all the left leaning channels that were hit with flagging, de-monetization, removals and bans?

      How can you say that YouTube ignored left leaning channels when so many of them were hit hard by the AI ban-hammer?

      Meanwhile YouTube is dominated by far right redpill/alt-right/anti-feminist channels. People like Sargon, Armoured Skeptic, Bearing, TL;DR, The Golden One, Paul Joseph Watson... How many interviews with Richard Spencer are up there? Interviewing a self-proclaimed Nazi seems to be the latest fad.

      And in all the outrage over these latest bans, the fact that YouTube said they were a mistake and reversed them seems to have been ignored.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    31. Re:Incompetence by civilwaradvocate · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously expecting them to all be experts who never make mistakes?

      Oh, so the problem is with MY expectations, of course THEY HAD TO DO SOMETHING, they couldn't have just let free discourse take shape, that's crazy.

      pretty much all conspiracy theorist / fake news people

      Oh good, just as long as it's PRETTY MUCH just everyone Google doesn't like for only the reason they CLAIMED, I guess I should place more trust in them and give them a longer leash before I object!

      Humanity is in the midst of a speciation event.
      Humans who buy the authoritarian bullshit vs. real people. Pick your side, only one can win.

    32. Re:Incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's 650 dead kids a year compared to your right to be a fucking moron with a car? You are no less free if you don't own a car, all the other excuses boil down to tiny dick motorsexual bullshit.

      Fucking idiot.

    33. Re:Incompetence by mentil · · Score: 2

      Not everyone killed by a gangbanger is another gang member. Gang members tend to be poor shots, and kill innocent bystanders regularly. Bullets go through walls and hit people, etc., drive-bys hit everyone in the vicinity, so just being near a gang member (maybe a relative) is enough to get you killed. Wear the wrong color clothes and you can be mistaken for being a member of a gang that has those as their identifying colors. Gang initiations sometimes involve killing a stranger, or so the rumor goes at least.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    34. Re:Incompetence by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      Funny how the "mistakes" all go one way.

      Funny how it is always conservatives, even very moderate conservatives, who get demonetized and/or censored.

    35. Re:Incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, with that argument there aren't that many problems to be concerned about.
      For example toddlers (age 0-3) that gets access to guns kills far more people than Muslim terrorists every year.
      I guess that means that we can shut down TSA and let everyone from MENA in.

    36. Re:Incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm only familiar with armoured skeptic out of those, and I wouldn't consider him far right, red pill, alt-right but I would consider him anti-feminist. I guess that's why you don't like him? Why not mention his girl friend as she's far more anti-femanist than he is and far better known. I guess you can't really dismiss her so easily so you pretend she doesn't exist.

    37. Re:Incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government also banned alcohol and certain recreational drugs.

      Why would you even begin to think a gun ban in the US would be any more effective or create less additional violence and criminality than those last two attempts at nanny-state prohibitions/bans?

      From a societal and practical viewpoint the math is clear and proved by history.

      War On Guns == War On Drugs == Alcohol Prohibition

    38. Re:Incompetence by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.

      However, this isn't the first time youtube has screwed up like this.

      Why the hell are they allowing obviously untrained people the power to wipe out entire channels on a whim?

      Since YT announced ahead of time it's intention to hire moderators, it's quite possible that individuals with an agenda applied and deliberately mislead YT HR as to their impartiality, and/or political activist groups sent people to apply to fill these positions with similar intent to advance their political agendas and suppress opposing viewpoints and voices.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    39. Re:Incompetence by pots · · Score: 1

      The article doesn't say anything about their degree of partisanship, they could be moderates or extremists, it only talks about the conspiracy theories that they were promoting. If some of them were moderates, you should see that as a good sign - it shows that they were not banned for their politics, but rather for their deception.

    40. Re:Incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would think the army of 10,000 would be assigned to "scrub" through the data sending up potential violations for consideration by the higher trained employees. It would be surprising if they just ran new hires through basic training and then gave them the power to block content without review.

      That said, I don't believe their excuse in the slightest bit. They are radical leftists and the only reason they are back tracking is because they generated more heat than they anticipated.

    41. Re:Incompetence by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Who is good girlfriend? I know there are a few anti-feminist women on YouTube, but they are mostly harmless.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    42. Re:Incompetence by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      You gotta look at the whole cost-benefit, not just the cost.
      Cars are one of the costliest things in society in terms of mortality, pollution, and rage. But they also provide the big benefit of getting you around.
      The cost of guns is a lot of gun deaths. What is the benefit of guns? Resisting oppressive government? How big is that benefit, really? Are we at a point where we really need that?

    43. Re:Incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False dichotomy there. Either they were extremists and therefore this is not partisanship (how does that work?) or they were not extremists and they were censored for their "deceptive" views.

      Either way you get to demonize someone's political leanings while hiding behind a weasel words such as extremist or deception when it could simply be that they believe what they post and what they post you disagree with. Further, why are left-leaning "extremists" or "deceptive" content not removed? That does not fit into your reasoning.

    44. Re:Incompetence by Srin+Tuar · · Score: 1

      so legalize drugs and solve that problem.

    45. Re:Incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wikipeadia and truth?
      Wikipeadia is a hellhole with "moderators" and "writers" from far-left who constantly rewrite historical articles.

    46. Re:Incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But our current AI is bad at being unbiased, since they are taught by humans.
      Remember how Microsoft had to lobotomize their social media AI? The Internet had turned it into a racist.

    47. Re:Incompetence by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      Liberal, Liberal, Liberal

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
  9. Meanwhile, on lying CNN by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Today, CNN was lying about President Trump saying that he wanted to confiscate guns without due process. More fake news. We all know our President would never ever say such a thing!

    The phony quote, if you can possibly believe it, was, "I like taking the guns early...Take the guns first. Go through due process second,” They even had some CGI version of President Trump speaking these words in a supposed meeting with members of congress.

    We're not going to fall for it, no sir. We're way to smart for that. YOU DON'T GET TO SLANDER OUR PRESIDENT THAT WAY, LIBS.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re: Meanwhile, on lying CNN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Aren't you late for a Bund meeting?

    2. Re: Meanwhile, on lying CNN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, you libturds still fail to read between the lines. When will you migrate to Canada as you pledged before Hillary lost?

    3. Re:Meanwhile, on lying CNN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not think anyone needs to help slander a monster, it is a self evident reality

    4. Re: Meanwhile, on lying CNN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Today, CNN was lying about President Trump saying that he wanted to confiscate guns without due process. More fake news.

      According to Fox News Trump actually said this.

    5. Re:Meanwhile, on lying CNN by thomst · · Score: 1, Troll

      PopeRatzo railed:

      Today, CNN was lying about President Trump saying that he wanted to confiscate guns without due process. More fake news. We all know our President would never ever say such a thing!

      The phony quote, if you can possibly believe it, was, "I like taking the guns early...Take the guns first. Go through due process second,” They even had some CGI version of President Trump speaking these words in a supposed meeting with members of congress.

      We're not going to fall for it, no sir. We're way to smart for that. YOU DON'T GET TO SLANDER OUR PRESIDENT THAT WAY, LIBS.

      Moderate parent +1 Funny, please ...

      --
      Check out my novel.
    6. Re:Meanwhile, on lying CNN by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Pop on over to Reddit where The Donald subreddit has gone nuts banning long time posters as the mods rage against anyone and everyone. It's a slugfest of deleted posts and reposts, gun nuts against conservative zealots, people calling trump obama, it's a grade A gilded shitstorm.

    7. Re: Meanwhile, on lying CNN by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      According to Fox News Trump actually said this.

      In that case, Trump didn't really mean it because he was actually playing 12-dimensional chess and owning the libs.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:Meanwhile, on lying CNN by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      Pop on over to Reddit where The Donald subreddit has gone nuts [reddit.com] banning long time posters as the mods rage against anyone and everyone. It's a slugfest of deleted posts and reposts, gun nuts against conservative zealots, people calling trump obama, it's a grade A gilded shitstorm.

      Oh man, alt-right reddit drama is like crack to me. Now I'll be up much too late reading that stuff. Thanks a lot. No really, thanks a lot.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  10. Really? by tsa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Mistakenly?

    --

    -- Cheers!

    1. Re:Really? by DivineKnight · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm not buying it.

    2. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The SPLC is a "trusted flagger" on Youtube. This was no mistake. Youtube is just that far gone, ideologically speaking.

  11. They shut down channels by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    promoting the conspiracy theory that the kids caught up in the last school shooting were "crisis actors" and that the shooting was a "false flag" (e.g. it never really happened).

    Personally if I were Youtube I wouldn't want to be associated with those kind of nut jobs (if they believe it) or bastards (if they don't believe it and are just passing it around to get a rise out of the nut jobs). Remember kiddies, it's not censorship if the government didn't do it. You have a right to speak, you do not have a right to make google pay for your megaphone.

    Meanwhile Youtube continue to de-rank left wing media in favor of corporate media (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:They shut down channels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Remember kiddies, it's not censorship if the government didn't do it."
      When the government mandates that YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter are subject to FCC regulations the government will have some say on the subject. Google, Facebook, and Twitter are currently in panic mode. Any recent efforts these corporations have made to control content flowing through their services are just eye candy to stave off the government as long as they can.

      And whose to say YouTube didn't hire 10,000 registered Democrats and left wing disciples to serve as their censors.

      "promoting the conspiracy theory that the kids caught up in the last school shooting were "crisis actors" and that the shooting was a "false flag" (e.g. it never really happened). "
      These conspiracy theories are ridiculous and idiotic. What's scary is there are people who will believe anything the see or hear as long as it supports their world view. People don't like anything that doesn't support their particular pre-determined positions. We have sacrificed truth with agendas and it is only getting worse now that the main stream media outlets have taken sides and tailor their content to support their own "editorial line". It's not the government that is pushing us to the brink of destruction it is the people.

    2. Re:They shut down channels by WaffleMonster · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      promoting the conspiracy theory that the kids caught up in the last school shooting were "crisis actors" and that the shooting was a "false flag" (e.g. it never really happened).

      It's called censorship.

      Personally if I were Youtube I wouldn't want to be associated with those kind of nut jobs (if they believe it) or bastards (if they don't believe it and are just passing it around to get a rise out of the nut jobs).

      Good thing you're not YouTube.

      Remember kiddies, it's not censorship if the government didn't do it. You have a right to speak, you do not have a right to make google pay for your megaphone.

      Tolerating nut jobs and bastards is everyone's responsibility. It's not simply about what is and is not legal. Tolerance is the price of freedom.

    3. Re:They shut down channels by burtosis · · Score: 0

      That's ok because mainstream media never lies or even bends the truth. /s

    4. Re:They shut down channels by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Of course it's censorship. It's not legally-mandated censorship, so one could consider it self-censorship on the part of YouTube, being that it owns the series of tubes here. But it's still censorship.

      I find it odd how people will go to the argument that it's only censorship if the government does it. Is it also not illegal search and search and seizure if your neighbor or business partner, who is not the government, breaks in your door and rummages through your stuff to collect evidence?

      Governments exist to secure people's rights. Against attacks by other people. And other governments. And since someone has to watch the watcher, we specifically enumerate the rights the government cannot violate in pursuit of that purpose.

      Read your Declaration. The right to free speech isn't only the right against government censorship; it is a Natural Right that you have by virtue of sucking down oxygen. The government is there to make sure no one takes it from you. That includes other private actors to whom you have not ceded it. YouTube's community guidelines do not constitute an agreement to relinquish the right to make right-wing statements. If YouTube is treating it as such, that would be a breach of contract between customer and service provider.

      I'll add one more thing. Again: if you don't want the government censoring you, then you've got to model respect for freedom of expression in the wider culture. Because government doesn't perpetuate itself. This is a democracy. The impressionable people watching you now (aka children) will be tomorrow's legislators and prosecutors. Not a good idea to give them the idea that free speech is not sacrosanct.

    5. Re:They shut down channels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally if I were Youtube I wouldn't want to be associated with those kind of nut jobs

      But god help you if you don't want to bake a cake for someone.

      Meanwhile Youtube continue to de-rank left wing media [reddit.com] in favor of corporate media (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc).

      It's less about left-wing versus right-wing than about corporatocracy versus populism, though the almost unanimous current agreement of liberals and corporations gives the corporations a firm support base and a plausible moral wall to hide behind, just like GWB used the threat of terrorism as a shield to justify expanding the surveillance state.

      In principle liberals can be just as 'problematic' for the establishment as Trump and his supporters, as incidents like OWS or Bernie's near-thwarting of Hillary prove.

    6. Re:They shut down channels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, you seem to have omitted your point.

    7. Re:They shut down channels by civilwaradvocate · · Score: 1

      it's not censorship if the government didn't do it

      This is so incredibly stupid I wonder if you're trolling. It's still censorship. The actions are the same. The actor does not define the action. Maybe in you insane leftist sub-"reality" where double standards are the fundamental.

      Google is essentially creating a state within a state and usurping the authority of congress. Aside from the fact they are owned and operated in great part by federal agencies, but hey, that's a "conspiracy theory"[1].

      They operate a public space. The constitution applies, or would, if the United States of America was still a country. But it's constitution has been repealed by the authorities who are supposed to enforce it - the general public especially.

      But the fact remains, it's on paper, it's still in the same place as it was to begin with, and violating its provisions still makes the actor self-contradictory and malicious, due the same justice.

      [1] - https://wikileaks.org/google-i...

    8. Re:They shut down channels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... censorship.

      Call it whatever you like, as the GP reminds, no-one has to pay for your speech: A principle that you side-stepped.

      ... you're not YouTube.

      In the news yesterday was the fact that US congress wants to hold web-page publishers (eg. YouTube, Facebook) responsible for the content of their subscribers: Internet censorship always existed and soon it will be mandatory in the USA.

      Tolerance is the price of freedom.

      No, vigilance is the price of freedom: Specifically, treating fake news as fake. But in a post-truth society, anything is fake news.

      Tolerance is the price of free speech: As always, rights are limited. Society cannot tolerate the phrases "someone should murder your children" or "someone should rape you"; contrary to what Twitter practices.

      ... is everyone's responsibility.

      No, it is not the responsibility of children to know what is fake, which is what this article addresses. Yes, you just found the flaw in democracy. It wasn't so troublesome in past centuries because politicians learnt to lead all of society, not just their socio-demographic clique. Or to put it another way, society has lost herd immunity and one article of fake news can infect everyone with anti-social ideals.

    9. Re:They shut down channels by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      AC that really depends on the US state. Opening a forum for public and political discussion that anyone can walk into and join may not always keep enjoying that ToS "is not the government" cover.
      The key in some states is what is private but still regularly held open to the public and what a state constitution says.
      i.e. what sites could be seen as "common areas".

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    10. Re:They shut down channels by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The problem is when nut jobs and bastards get an inside seat when deciding national policy. Remember lots of dictators around the world started as nut jobs and/or bastards. Idiots spreading misguided rumors have caused damage; we had someone showing up armed at a pizza parlor looking for hillary's pedo ring.

      We do not have to tolerate these people. We are already responsible, we just want the nut jobs and bastards to also be responsible. Do we stand by while others convince kids to eat Tide pods, or do we have a responsibility to tell them to shut up? Do we stand by while others claim over and over that Obama was not a US citizen (or McCain), or should we attempt to correct them?

      Infowars is an extremely dangerous source of information because so many powerful people are stupid enough to believe the fake news coming out of there. They're not a news service, they are a troll zoo. As responsible people we should encourage people to stop visiting them, and we should tell them to shut the hell up.

    11. Re:They shut down channels by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The first amendment to the US constitution:
      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

      With regards to restricting free speech, the constitution only places restrictions on congress. The constitution does not apply to Youtube here.

    12. Re:They shut down channels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Governments exist to secure people's rights. Against attacks by other people. And other governments.

      I lost you, here. Are we still talking about US?

    13. Re:They shut down channels by Darinbob · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Stopping someone from speaking in a public square would be censorship, stopping them from entering my house and yammering in my living room is not censorship. If someone kicked them out of a video service that had only 1000 subscribers, that wouldn't be censorship, such a tiny service in no way prevents them from spouting off their shit somewhere else. So why is a large video company suddenly censoring if it tells them to get lost? They can find another service, make their own service, go to a news outlet, mimeograph flyers and post them on telephone poles, etc.

      Also, not all censorship is illegal. The US constitution only says that congress cannot engage in censorship, it does not restrict corporations or individuals from doing that.

    14. Re:They shut down channels by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Is it also not illegal search and search and seizure if your neighbor or business partner, who is not the government, breaks in your door and rummages through your stuff to collect evidence?

      No, it's not illegal search and seizure. It's theft, trespass and breaking and entering. Those are entirely different crimes.

      Read your Declaration. The right to free speech isn't only the right against government censorship; it is a Natural Right that you have by virtue of sucking down oxygen.

      Yeah, and you have that. See:

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

      Nowhere does it say "Congress shall pass a law so that whiny RightWingNutJob can have a megaphone provided freely by someone else".

      I mean for heaven's sake man, there are other video websites out there. You can even set up your own for free very easily and for little money. You know if you want to speak freely (and I mean actually speak), it's not censorship that Exxon won't pay your gas money when you get up off your lazy ass and drive to somewhere people can hear you.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    15. Re:They shut down channels by civilwaradvocate · · Score: 1

      So what is your point? "Rules are rules?"

      Your total ignorance of the philosophy aside:
      You're missing the argument that Google is usurping the authority of congress and that Google is invested in and its operations are fundamentally guided by federal agencies, which are SUPPOSED to be the servants of congress.

    16. Re: They shut down channels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing yer so woke and know better bro! Youre the best!

    17. Re:They shut down channels by Z80a · · Score: 1

      This is the end result of the "big media" dropping the impartiality and taking a side, they basically killed all their credibility, which allowed the so called "fake news" to thrive.
      Now it's a terrible world where idiots like Alex Jones are in an equal ground to let's say CNN in terms of trustworthiness.

      The only way to get rid of it is to get rid of this politicization of the media, regain credibility and show the actual truth, even if the truth goes against their personal beliefs.
       

    18. Re: They shut down channels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >And whose to say YouTube didn't hire 10,000 registered Democrats and left wing disciples to serve as their censors.

      Who is to say?? Anyone with half a brain.. ..well yer fucked then!

    19. Re:They shut down channels by civilwaradvocate · · Score: 1

      Basically you are falling into the side that wants to decide this issue with semantics instead of philosophy.
      Is that what you really want?

    20. Re:They shut down channels by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      Read your Declaration. The right to free speech isn't only the right against government censorship; it is a Natural Right that you have by virtue of sucking down oxygen. The government is there to make sure no one takes it from you. That includes other private actors to whom you have not ceded it. YouTube's community guidelines do not constitute an agreement to relinquish the right to make right-wing statements. If YouTube is treating it as such, that would be a breach of contract between customer and service provider.

      That akin to requiring the local theatre to give you a stage, the local restaurant to tolerate your offending their other customers. And does it just apply to businesses, or can I come to your house and lecture you whenever I feel like it?

      The lack of explicit terms disallowing specific speech doesn't mean anything. And if you read those terms carefully, they surely include a "we can ban you for any reason we like" clause.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    21. Re:They shut down channels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember kiddies, it's not censorship if the government didn't do it.

      So you're anti-net-neutrality then? Or just inconsistent?

    22. Re:They shut down channels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Governments exist to secure people's rights. Against attacks by other people. And other governments. And since someone has to watch the watcher, we specifically enumerate the rights the government cannot violate in pursuit of that purpose.

      "And since someone has to watch the watcher, we specifically enumerate the powers the government can use in pursuit of that purpose." FTFY Be careful about thinking the Bill of Rights is comprehensive.

    23. Re:They shut down channels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read your Declaration. The right to free speech isn't only the right against government censorship; it is a Natural Right that you have by virtue of sucking down oxygen. The government is there to make sure no one takes it from you.

      You should read your Declaration. It says nothing about freedom of speech. You're confusing the Declaration of Independance with the Constitution (which also said nothing about speech until an amendment was added).

      In addition, the First Amendment only says government won't make any law abridging the freedom of speech. It does not say the government will step in and force other people to distribute your speech for you.

      I will concede, however, that your username is singularly appropriate to the level of misunderstanding your post conveys.

    24. Re:They shut down channels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He never had a point, just anger issues.

    25. Re:They shut down channels by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      In the news yesterday was the fact that US congress wants to hold web-page publishers (eg. YouTube, Facebook) responsible for the content of their subscribers: Internet censorship always existed and soon it will be mandatory in the USA.

      Whether censorship exists or not is irrelevant to whether it is a good idea or a bad idea.

      No, vigilance is the price of freedom: Specifically, treating fake news as fake. But in a post-truth society, anything is fake news.

      It means you can't sleep on your ass and expect your ideology to win by default. You have to work to build and maintain consensus not hide behind the states monopoly on violence (e.g. censorship) to get your way.

      Tolerance is the price of free speech: As always, rights are limited. Society cannot tolerate the phrases "someone should murder your children" or "someone should rape you"; contrary to what Twitter practices.

      Sure they can and they should.

      Fear is always what fuels pro-censorship foolishness. I'm afraid of lies winning out. I'm afraid of the other ideology taking over. I'm afraid of what I don't like. From that fear comes justifications of all manner to silence those saying disagreeable things because the fearful deem them harmful to society when in fact they are just too lazy or unable to pursuit the hard work of building consensus for their ideology.

      The problem with censorship is the ideology in power always gets to decide what is or is not agreeable and even what is true. This only leads to further aggregation of power and predictable outcomes expressed in universally understood lord Acton quotes.

      Much better for society to fight for what they believe, let the crackpots have their YouTube videos and tolerate belligerence than hide behind the use of violence to force people to conform to your will.

      The problem with the Internet and Media is commercial interests are placed above good governance and integrity. News organizations do not need to technically lie to mislead the public in order to profit. Internet sites don't need to hand out megaphones to everyone and pay them to use them. Censorship won't fix or change anything. It will only make matters worse.

      No, it is not the responsibility of children to know what is fake, which is what this article addresses.

      Yes of course learning how to judge the value of information is the responsibility of everyone from little kid to old geezer.

      Yes, you just found the flaw in democracy. It wasn't so troublesome in past centuries because politicians learnt to lead all of society, not just their socio-demographic clique. Or to put it another way, society has lost herd immunity

      A democracy? Like the Weimar republic? That's really what the world needs politicians leading all of society...screw that I would much rather see politicians at each others throats constantly fighting over scraps of power they wield with nobody gaining much ground.

      Despite the noise and nonsense peddled on the Internet all of the worlds societies are a heck of a lot better off and a heck of a lot healthier today than they have ever been at any point in human history.

      and one article of fake news can infect everyone with anti-social ideals.

      Spoken like a damn foolish coward who has never bothered to even try and understand nor learn from history.

  12. BeauHD, Did you post from a bus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Weâ(TM)re continuing to enforce our existing policies regarding harmful and dangerous content, they have not changed. Weâ(TM)ll reinstate any videos that were removed in error."

    1. Re:BeauHD, Did you post from a bus? by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      That would make sense. Seems like they scraped up the editors at a bus station.

  13. Interesting that almost everytime by oldgraybeard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    when Facebook, Twitter, etc creates a new policy to deal with troublesome speech. The first thing that happens is the Right is taken out big time ;)

    Then there is the oops, and the just a coincidence responses and over time some are brought back.

    What a bogus hoot ;)

    just my 2 cents ;)

    1. Re:Interesting that almost everytime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes the dumbest people say the dumbest things.

    2. Re:Interesting that almost everytime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget this when the bullets start flying.

    3. Re:Interesting that almost everytime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the left got a few channels censored, and the there was no noticeable decrease in the whinginging?

    4. Re:Interesting that almost everytime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's almost like the expansive ornate buildings that work there have an agenda or something.

    5. Re:Interesting that almost everytime by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      But in this case it was the left that was hit first. When it was just AI looking at videos a lot got de-monetized. Then the waves of false-flag attacks from 4chan started, and a lot of left leaning channels like Contrapoints and Kevin Logan got videos removed or even entire channels taken down.

      So YouTube started hiring human beings to review videos instead, and of course mistakes were made.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Interesting that almost everytime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look how easily he deludes himself. Left-leaning videos taken down by an algorithm? It's a false flag attack from 4chan! Right-leaning videos taken down by real people? Well obviously it's all just a big mistake.

    7. Re:Interesting that almost everytime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Youtube just demonstrated that they are banning political views... and they are about to find out the world of pain that comes along with that as the government steps in to regulate them..

      Lesson: never listen to SJWs. They will take down your business.

      how many more fucking times do you need this proving to you?

  14. We "mistakenly" took down the website. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah yeah that's the story.

  15. Annnnnd... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...nothing of value was lost.

    Relevant XKCD.

  16. Why (tm) in the post? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is with all the weird characters in the post?

    Oh right, because /. will pay lip service to the IT crowd, but not actually give a single developer money to fix a single thing

    I think I'm done with this site, the articles tend to have little to do with new fascinating technologies and more to do with facebook style click bait

    No one appears to be at the helm to give the site much needed technical overhauls

    The posters get into weird flame wars about politics instead of discussing anything and swear at each other endlessly with keyboard cowboy empty threats of violence

    Good bye /.

    1. Re:Why (tm) in the post? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The (TM)s show up whenever someone posts from an iPhone, and probably various other mobile devices that use Unicode for quotation marks and other punctuation.

      Basically, either the developers at Slashdot are idiots, or their managers are. More likely the latter.

  17. Just What They Say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YouTube just said what you say when you get caught doing something that looks very bad. Youtube has a very negative and vicious agenda.

  18. Meanwhile, on Facebook by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1, Troll

    Facebook rolled out its new algorithm in January.

    Due to the algorithm, Trump's total engagement dropped by about half, while the engagements of left-wing people such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren stayed largely the same.

    I don't mind healthy competition between political viewpoints, but why does "oops, we're having some trouble with the algorithm" always seem to be in favor of the left?

    1. Re:Meanwhile, on Facebook by kamapuaa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      From looking, Sanders started at about 800K and ended up at about 300, about the same proportion as Trump.

      There's really no comparison, because Trump's numbers were so much higher to begin with. Maybe Trump just acquired more casual onlookers than the other candidates.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    2. Re:Meanwhile, on Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they don't release the algorithm if it's in favor of the right. It's cargo culting.

    3. Re:Meanwhile, on Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook rolled out its new algorithm in January.

      Due to the algorithm, Trump's total engagement dropped by about half, while the engagements of left-wing people such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren stayed largely the same.

      ...
      You are linking to BREITBART!!!! I could try to argue this issue logically, and with facts, but I conclude there's no chance when you're quoting Breitbart form the start.

  19. What a Day We're Havin' by Kunedog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "We fired an engineer for being aware of basic biology and psychology, and we constantly curate the front page and trending vidlist to exclude viewpoints we don't like. Oh, and we also hired 10,000 thought police. How could this happen???" -Youtube

    1. Re:What a Day We're Havin' by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      You misspelled "simplstic".

      And so did I!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:What a Day We're Havin' by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      we constantly curate the front page and trending vidlist to exclude viewpoints we don't like

      Nope.

      The front page is by default full of popular but bland videos, determined by things like the ratio of up/down votes. If you create an account it starts to customize it for you. For example, I get both left leaning and some really extreme far right stuff recommended to me, because it knows I'm interested in politics and recommends both videos similar to the ones I've liked and counter-arguments/responses to those videos.

      If you have evidence of a conspiracy then post it, but since YouTube has also killed left leaning channels and de-monetized videos about things like make-up for trans folks it's hard to argue that there is any systemic bias.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:What a Day We're Havin' by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

      His conclusion was basically "If we accept that women and men have differences in the environments they, on average, flourish best in, then perhaps we should provide different environments to different people!"

      Sure it's simplistic... but so is "water is wet" and that rule of thumb still got us pretty far.

      On the other hand, modern SJWs have to bend over backwards once or twice (a sight to see. It would be approproiate for variete!) to mold science to their worldview.

      I think Damore was on point with his basic premise. A LOT of today's work culture is not good for a lot of women AND a lot of men as well. If "People who feel good do better work and making people feel good takes a bit of investment" is too far a stretch for people to wrap their minds around, then I'm very sorry, you just don't deserve quality products to sell.

      Google has gotten too big for their britches and a certain amount of decline would do them well.

    4. Re:What a Day We're Havin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The front page is by default full of popular but bland videos, determined by things like the ratio of up/down votes

      There are exceptions, as exposed by Project Veritas

  20. Funny by burtosis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Where do you draw the line when we also value freedom of speech? People like Alex jones are nucking futs but pulling down a channel like that only makes it worse by lending credibility and showing its worthy of attention. I completely disagree with nearly anything out of that mans mouth but banning him from YouTube is something I would not be ok with. If people can't tell reality from fiction then the problem is worse than the internet police can address.

    1. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If people can't tell reality from fiction then the problem is worse than the internet police can address.

      Please keep up. The entire concept of spreading bullshit on the internet was invented by Russians in the year 2016, and only drastic policing of "fake news" and "hate speech" by benevolent, nonpartisan megacorporations can save society from being brainwashed and radicalized by evil Russian twitter bots.

    2. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you could do what slashdot is - mod anon posts down by default and shadowban ips. Overall the last few weeks have shown some rather odd coordinated "clampdowns" on speech from Twitch to Youtube.

      So welcome anon to the new Slashdot. If the trolls don't kill it, the mods will. Maybe they moonlight on reddit.

      #9e35c746e01c1f1dfd64a7237a4dfb73

    3. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, YouTube have recently gone trough with a much wider ban of less problematic channels in their quest to make it more child-friendly.
      Very few called it censorship then because it was obviously made for commercial reasons.
      Now people thinks that this recent ban is for political reasons while it really is to protect their brand.

      You can scream all you want about censorship, but preventing YouTube from doing business as they see fit is also a form of censorship.

    4. Re:Funny by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      but pulling down a channel like that only makes it worse by lending credibility and showing its worthy of attention.

      Just because I clean up a dogshit from my front yard doesn't mean that everyone suddenly feels like they wanted to have a sniff of it first. Alex Jones gets no more credibility by being removed from a platform that doesn't want him than he had before.

      What he does get is media attention, but certainly not credibility or any other "worth".

    5. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alex Jones has made accusations of being silenced from CNN and major channels as part of a conspiracy against him, many, many times already. Near constantly. Often this is after he screams and yells and carries on in a way that often seems calculated to get him banned/kicked off. I have a hard time believing you've really listened to him and not just read about him and not know this is his own line or argument. Same thing about being kicked off properties belonging to the Hildeburg(sp?) group, and that "satanic" club in California. What worries you happening in the future is something he practices on a regular basis.
        "If people can't tell reality from fiction then the problem is worse than the internet police can address." This is sort of in agreement with my point of view. People, especially Americans, have been under-educated, and increasingly exposed to more and more video entertainment for decades now and cannot tell reality from fiction. So the solution is to give up? Tell the "internet police" it's hopeless? That's backwards-type thinking. If it's truly worse than you seem to believe, that's not the time to tell Google/Alphabet to give it up. If anything, it's a signal for YouTube to move ahead with a pay-for-only model.
       

    6. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are so stupid that you do not know the Bilderberg group?

      And Bohemian Grove?

  21. They should have checked her resume. by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Funny

    Google should have given a quick glance at Lois Lerner's resume before hiring her to run their Department Of Capricious Silencing. Or, maybe they did!

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  22. Pretty accurate mistake by quantaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    FTA:
    YouTube’s new moderators, brought in to spot fake, misleading and extreme videos, stumbled in one of their first major tests, mistakenly removing some clips and channels in the midst of a nationwide debate on gun control.

    [..]

    On Wednesday, the Outline highlighted accounts, including Titus Frost, that were banned from the video site. Frost tweeted on Wednesday that a survivor of the shooting, David Hogg, is an actor. Jerome Corsi of right-wing conspiracy website Infowars said on Tuesday that YouTube had taken down one of his videos and disabled his live stream.

    If Frost and Corsi don't qualify as fake, misleading, and extreme then those words have lost meaning.

    ps. Has anyone else noticed /. being slow and intermittent the last few days? I wonder if they're on the receiving of a DDOS or something.

    --
    I stole this Sig
    1. Re:Pretty accurate mistake by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      ps. Has anyone else noticed /. being slow and intermittent the last few days? I wonder if they're on the receiving of a DDOS or something.

      Yep. I got 503s last night when I tried to log in.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  23. Re:Serious question by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

    At some point, pornhub is going to have this problem too. They've already got a movie pirating problem.

    I'm nearly falling out of my chair right now laughing as I type this: behold the newest porn genre: Right-Wing Porn! It can't be transphobic or homophobic or islamophobic if the actor/actress of the necessary background is the one telling you to build the wall, keep a lid on refugees from backward countries, and respect the Bill of Rights.

  24. "MISTAKENLY" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "MISTAKENLY" with air quotes.
    Right.

  25. cost of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No system is perfect. Possibly the most critical system in the US is the justice system. It could not operate without a certain amount of injustice. By some estimates, as much as 5% of those incarcerated in the US are actually innocent. A few place it higher using indirect evidence based on research into plea bargains.

    So, in order to be safer, of the 2 million we incarcerate each year, we commit at least 40K and as much as 100K innocent people. It is the cost of justice.

    The removal of a video from youtube unjustly is considerably less penalty than the incarceration of an innocent man. It seems as though a false positive error rate over 10-20% would be perfectly reasonable if it significantly increases the rate of removal of those videos that really should be removed - especially if there is a route to getting mistakes reversed. The percentage of mistakes fixed in the justice system is extremely low.

  26. Mistakenly ...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uh, huh ...

  27. Re:PopeFATZO let's see who lies... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LMAO There is APK fat useless virgin posting his delusional bullshit out of his ass off again, and making silly accusations, poor Koch sucker, gives his ass away for free. Sad.

  28. Because car were not constructed to kill by aepervius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And you need a permit to operate a car. Look there are many many reason all those car/cooking knife (or heck swimming pool) comparison to gun death are utterly stupid. For one we have accepted that some objects have a primary useful activity which the general public enjoy making our capitalist societies better : transportation (car) cooking/preparing/cutting (knife) and entertainment (swimming pool). When accident do happen we try as a society to make up new law enforcing certain protection or minimum standard to help increase security lower death count, e.g. seat belt, e.g. baby seat placement instruction on car seat. Killing is at best a bar far secondary objective of such items (combat knife) or even never the objective (car, pool). But with gun it is different. The primary reason of the guns, is that they were invented to kill more efficiently. Forget the BS about sport , that did not happen in the 18th century for your average person in the US, at the time of the framing of the second amendment. And yet contrary to car, you don't have anywhere near the regulation for an instrument made up primary to kill. You don't even have nearly the same training, and you have not even the same follow up on ownership.

    Every attempt at having a minimum , heck like car tracking ownership or having non discriminatory permit/training is met by a "they want to get uuuuur guuuunns" lobby of the NRA which says "no" to EVERYTHING. As long as you let those fuckers block everything with a "no", even something as simple as allowing : 1) tracking ownership electronically 2) enforce having a real training with permit like a car (that does not infringe the general population right of ownership IMO if it stops you getting one because you are too fucked up to pass the permit, as long as the exams is not the stupid 4h training the NRA offer anybody can pass with the finger in the nose) 3) allow again the CDC to study gun violence and/or solution , then the situation will get fucked up. Look up the statistics : while gun violence dropped in the last 3 decades, mass shooting actually rose. Sharply. That should tell you something right there.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Because car were not constructed to kill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The primary purpose of the firearms I own is putting holes in paper.

      The primary purpose of a significant number of firearms in possession are to be "Safe Queens" aka collector pieces.

      If you make the argument that a combat knife's purpose of murdering people is secondary, so too is a firearms.

      Lastly, please explain to me how cars are marketed based upon their ability to violate our speed laws and travel at unsafe speeds, despite no public road in the USA allowing vehicles to travel faster than 75mph and despite the fact that vehicular fatalities are responsible for orders of magnitude more deaths to children than firearms, let alone assault weapons. Specifically excessive speed being the leading cause of vehicular fatalities.

      If you are going to argue that a firearm's only purpose is to murder, then you must also accept that modern cars only purpose is to murder also as they are marketed and sold based upon their ability to violate the speed laws of our roads and thus cause vehicular fatalities due to excessive speed.

    2. Re: Because car were not constructed to kill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You are not understanding that your beliefs are bases on emotion not logic. You say cars have a useful purpose. So do guns. However, just as You could eliminate guns and have a functioning society, you could also eliminate all cars and have a perfectly functioning society through the use of bicycles. That society would be much healthier and happier. You could keep the roads open and have lanes dedicated towards ambulances and semi trucks. If you give up your car, I will give up my gun. Guns serve a function in society, mainly hunting and shooting people you do not like. If we got rid of guns it would in some ways be befificial because it would force people to pay attention to woefully neglected sword fighting skills. It would be really cool to see people fighting each other with swords everyday. So I really think you have something there. If you really feel strongly about stopping gun violence I will support you but only if you give up your car. I want to see thousands of people riding to work everyday with swords strapped to their backs. If you refuse to give up your car I will keep my gun and we can engage in gun play on Americas highways.

      Evolution is a process whereby, through natural selection and predation, nature creates better and better killing machines. Some people are just not happy living in the modern world and want to return to a more innocent time when we rode bicycles and killed each other with swords or big rocks. I am saying you are not wrong. I share a bit of your nostalgia, and would be will to try living in your quaint little world for a while. E.g a world without guns

    3. Re:Because car were not constructed to kill by andydread · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Driving a car is a privilege not a right and certainly not a constitutional right. Constitutional rights should not be infringed...Period. If you want to infringe on someone's constitutional right whether it's the 1st or 2nd amendment or any other right enshrined by the constitution then change the constitution. Also cooking or using a swimming pool are not constitutional rights.

      Why should the Center for Disease Control study violence That is not an infectious disease. and why specifically "gun violence" and not all violence.

    4. Re:Because car were not constructed to kill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you need a permit to operate a car. Look there are many many reason all those car/cooking knife (or heck swimming pool) comparison to gun death are utterly stupid. For one we have accepted that some objects have a primary useful activity which the general public enjoy making our capitalist societies better : transportation (car) cooking/preparing/cutting (knife) and entertainment (swimming pool). When accident do happen we try as a society to make up new law enforcing certain protection or minimum standard to help increase security lower death count, e.g. seat belt, e.g. baby seat placement instruction on car seat. Killing is at best a bar far secondary objective of such items (combat knife) or even never the objective (car, pool). But with gun it is different. The primary reason of the guns, is that they were invented to kill more efficiently. Forget the BS about sport , that did not happen in the 18th century for your average person in the US, at the time of the framing of the second amendment. And yet contrary to car, you don't have anywhere near the regulation for an instrument made up primary to kill. You don't even have nearly the same training, and you have not even the same follow up on ownership.

      Every attempt at having a minimum , heck like car tracking ownership or having non discriminatory permit/training is met by a "they want to get uuuuur guuuunns" lobby of the NRA which says "no" to EVERYTHING. As long as you let those fuckers block everything with a "no", even something as simple as allowing : 1) tracking ownership electronically 2) enforce having a real training with permit like a car (that does not infringe the general population right of ownership IMO if it stops you getting one because you are too fucked up to pass the permit, as long as the exams is not the stupid 4h training the NRA offer anybody can pass with the finger in the nose) 3) allow again the CDC to study gun violence and/or solution , then the situation will get fucked up. Look up the statistics : while gun violence dropped in the last 3 decades, mass shooting actually rose. Sharply. That should tell you something right there.

      All the stink about how guns should be regulated like cars - licenses, training, safety features registration, etc -, but the truth is deaths caused by guns (even if you include suicides) is less than the deaths caused by automobiles.
      Your chance of death or injury is higher from a maniac on the road than a maniac with a gun. Looking at the statistics, you're safer standing next to a guy with a gun then on road with other maniacs around you.

      Why would the CDC investigate guns? Is someone going to get an infection from one? I think most people already know lead is toxic, fatally so at high velocity. What other conclusion do you think they will reach?

    5. Re:Because car were not constructed to kill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      theres a lot of bs, but the difference is that with a car you can kill others by mistake if you're not trained.
      with a gun it happens very very very rarely. you kill on purpose. though that's also very rare (at least in the US) when you look up the stats of actual homicides, which is nice.

      so basically, a gun permit helps with nothing. background checks that are actually done and respected though...

    6. Re:Because car were not constructed to kill by Solandri · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The primary reason of the guns, is that they were invented to kill more efficiently.

      Actually, NATO standardized on the smaller 5.56 mm round because in testing they discovered it would tumble, imparting more energy to the flesh and causing larger woulds. The M1 Garand (standard issue U.S. rifle in WWII) used .30-'06 rounds (7.62mm) which were so powerful they would punch right through a person. Good for a kill shot, but it tended to be all-or-nothing. Either you killed the target, or you just created a straight hole which could be bandaged up.

      The 5.56 mm rounds were better at creating injuries - lower kill rate but higher rate of incapacitating the target. And strategically it's better to wound enemy soldiers than to kill them. If you kill them, the enemy just ignores the bodies. If they're wounded, the enemy has to tie up resources recovering and evacuating the wounded, and additional resources for hospitalization and medical care.

      So no, the primary purpose of guns is not to kill more efficiently. That's a fantasy concocted by people trying to think of the worst possible rationale for something they dislike. The purpose of guns is to intimidate - make people fear the consequences of noncompliance with the person holding the gun. That's why sometimes police with guns can defuse a situation without ever firing a shot. If you believe the killing theory, then such a resolution should be impossible because the gun was never fired and thus had no opportunity to kill anyone.

      Intimidation is actually the main purpose of most weapons. Have you ever wondered why "decimate" is a synonym for utterly destroying, but it actually means killing just 1 in 10? Because killing isn't actually the purpose of weapons and war. It's intimidation. And killing 1 in 10 people in an opposing army was usually sufficient to cause the remaining 9 to rout and flee. Nukes are a good example - they worked to keep the U.S. from meddling with the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba, and vice versa, even though they were never used. Ukraine lacking them (they disarmed after assurances from the West that we'd protect them from invasion) is what allowed Russia to waltz in and grab Crimea.

      Forget the BS about sport , that did not happen in the 18th century for your average person in the US, at the time of the framing of the second amendment.

      Oh my. If you lived any reasonable distance outside of a city in the 18th century and didn't have a rifle, your family starved. It was the primary means of putting meat on the table. Part of the reason the U.S. won the Revolutionary War was because a significant fraction of the milita were sharpshooters skilled with using rifles (muskets with rifling to spin-stabilize the bullet increasing accuracy) for hunting. The British still followed the "line everyone up and fire a volley at once" strategy, which works great against an enemy doing the same thing back at you. Not so well against sharpshooters hiding in the woods picking you off one by one from a distance.

      (And if you're curious, no I don't own a gun. I don't even like them, and have never shot one aside from a BB gun. I just took the time to educate myself about the issue before drawing conclusions.)

    7. Re:Because car were not constructed to kill by blindseer · · Score: 2

      Guns were designed to kill, cars were designed to carry people safely. Cars are registered. Drivers are licensed. Yet cars kill far more people every year than guns.

      Then there is this:

      "they want to get uuuuur guuuunns"

      You just went into a rant mocking people that think someone might want to take their guns away and then explain in detail on how you want to do exactly that. You can claim that you did not in fact say you want to take my guns, only that I'd need a permit, have all my guns tracked electronically, and strict enforcement. Well, what happens to the guns I have that do not have electronic tracking? My guess is you would have them taken from me.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    8. Re:Because car were not constructed to kill by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So no, the primary purpose of guns is not to kill more efficiently. That's a fantasy concocted by people trying to think of the worst possible rationale for something they dislike.

      What you're basically saying above is that the primary purpose of guns is to maim more efficiently. That's not really much better you know. It's also massively ignorant, and you're referring to one particular 20th century invention as "all guns".

      The purpose of guns is to intimidate - make people fear the consequences of noncompliance with the person holding the gun. That's why sometimes police with guns can defuse a situation without ever firing a shot.

      No, that's not why, because often the police can defuse a situation without ever bringing guns into it at all.

      Part of the reason the U.S. won the Revolutionary War was because a significant fraction of the milita

      The other part was the French. And the Spanish.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    9. Re:Because car were not constructed to kill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, where's your well regulated militia? Where's your membership card?

      I thought so. Just shut up about your "rights", because you're not fulfilling the prerequisites. You are not qualified.

    10. Re:Because car were not constructed to kill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      allow again the CDC to study gun violence and/or solution

      Wait, why would CDC study gun violence unless there is a society-wide mental health issue to be studied? Isn't that the job of the Department of Justice?

    11. Re: Because car were not constructed to kill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rights are constrained by responsibilities. Boo hoo. Go cry moar pussy!

    12. Re: Because car were not constructed to kill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Militia doesnâ(TM)t mean today what it did in the 18th century, nice try thou.

    13. Re:Because car were not constructed to kill by thegarbz · · Score: 0

      and certainly not a constitutional right

      You know that it wasn't part of the constitutional right until an amendment was put in place right? Constitutions get amended, they are not cast in iron. Hiding behind a piece of paper for every debate is childish.

      Why should the Center for Disease Control study violence

      Because it's even more childish to hide behind a single word in a title for your argument. The CDC's primary role is improving health and security of Americans. This includes studying what impacts their health. If you don't understand how your population is dying then you can't help improve this statistic. Just because a lot of their effort goes into actual diseases doesn't mean they also don't monitor death by:
      - Guns
      - Vehicles
      - Workplace accidents
      - Viral infections
      - General health trends (obesity, smoking etc).

      Really you should learn what your government agencies do before you tell them how you think they should operate.

    14. Re:Because car were not constructed to kill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and certainly not a constitutional right

      You know that it wasn't part of the constitutional right until an amendment was put in place right? Constitutions get amended, they are not cast in iron. Hiding behind a piece of paper for every debate is childish.

      What a load of shit. Unthinking, CHILDISH shit.

      What you called a mere "piece of paper" is the fundamental law of the land.

      So laws don't matter to you, apparently.

      Yet you presumably want to pass laws restricting gun ownership.

      WTF?!?! You just called the fundamental law of the land a "piece of paper" that people are "hiding behind"? But you think any new proposed law would be more than a "piece of paper", not to be ignored?

      Like I said - you're an unthinking child. And unthinking, illogical child.

      You're hiding behind a lack of brains.

      The sad thing is, you probably think you're smart.

      The good thing is, your demonstration of your unthinking stupidity has been preserved for quite a long time. With no way for you to undo that.

    15. Re: Because car were not constructed to kill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What this all amounts to is gun snowflakes are to chicken shit to do anything without a gun.

    16. Re:Because car were not constructed to kill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is no right to unrestricted commerce/trade in weapons, in fact one of the powers the constitution most specifically grants Congress is the right to regular trade

    17. Re:Because car were not constructed to kill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, NATO standardized on the smaller 5.56 mm round because in testing they discovered it would tumble, imparting more energy to the flesh and causing larger woulds.

      I didn't realize NATO was around in 1789. Oh, right, no. Meanwhile, the fact they only did testing so late after and changed their policy is literally revisionism. It was officially recognized it was better to maim than to kill 160+ years later. I guess we should change the gun laws?

      That's why sometimes police with guns can defuse a situation without ever firing a shot. If you believe the killing theory, then such a resolution should be impossible because the gun was never fired and thus had no opportunity to kill anyone.

      Explains the police in the UK. Oh, right, you can intimidate people with the knowledge that non-compliance can mean years in jail. Meanwhile, one can physical incapacitate someone if necessary by physically incapacitating someone, no gun required. If all a gun was for is incapacitating without more lethal expectations, we wouldn't have issues with police regularly shooting people.

      Have you ever wondered why "decimate" is a synonym for utterly destroying, but it actually means killing just 1 in 10? Because killing isn't actually the purpose of weapons and war. It's intimidation. And killing 1 in 10 people in an opposing army was usually sufficient to cause the remaining 9 to rout and flee.

      On average, sure. That means a lot of times one side suffered 50% losses and other times just a Calvary charge would be enough. The main standard on whether an army would be routed had more to do with army training. Those untrained and inexperienced would flee very quickly, even if they were in all other ways in a better position. Those with experience would often fight very bitterly because two opposing armies of near equal sides with near equal experience would be heavily determined by the determination of soldiers to fight and exploit whatever advantage they had. It wasn't a simple, "we collect 1 out of 10 soldiers and execute them". Battles aren't that clean.

      You are right, though. In war, you want to intimidate the enemy to give up sooner rather than kill them. That way you can conscript the enemy into your own army, labor force, etc. Wars that fight to the death tend to cripple both sides. Read through history and notice how many wars were fought and how many empires fell. Also, note how much people were paying each other tribute to avoid wars--which lead to wars.

      Nukes are a good example - they worked to keep the U.S. from meddling with the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba, and vice versa, even though they were never used. Ukraine lacking them (they disarmed after assurances from the West that we'd protect them from invasion) is what allowed Russia to waltz in and grab Crimea.

      Directly. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, there was serious consideration by the US to destroy all their weapons with air strikes and invade the country. Iraq was invaded although officials actually believed Saddam had WMDs--chemicals if not nukes. I'd tend to argue that even if Ukraine had nukes, it still would have been invaded because Russia could overwhelm the Ukraine entirely if necessary with conventional weapons to avoid any sort of retaliatory nuclear strike from the US. Same thing with North Korea and its conventional weapons vs South Korea; it's why nukes don't radically change the story.

      Imitation is definitely key, but it doesn't create a positive situation. The very examples you use demonstrate how such a regime is very bad.

      The British still followed the "line everyone up and fire a volley at once" strategy, which works great against an enemy doing the same thing back at you. Not so well against sharpshooters hiding in the woods picking you off one by one from a distance.

      So, you're arg

    18. Re:Because car were not constructed to kill by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      You don't actually need a permit to operate a car. You don't need registration for your vehicle either. You only need those things if you want to use public roads. If you want to drive on private streets and private property, you don't need a license or registration. I think guns should be the same way. No restrictions on private ownership and use. You need a permit and registration to carry them in public.

      Sounds simple enough right?

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    19. Re:Because car were not constructed to kill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your right to personal transportation does not trump my child's right to live.

    20. Re:Because car were not constructed to kill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know that it wasn't part of the constitutional right until an amendment was put in place right?

      Really, that's the argument you're going to use? I recommend familiarizing yourself with the bill of rights. It was part of the original document at the time of publication. Also, fun facts, there was an argument that the bill of rights shouldn't be included because as the constitution is written, the government doesn't have the power to limit anything that is covered in the bill of rights. It was viewed strictly as redundant. The proponents argued though that power hungry assholes (not their words, mine) would try to warp the documents meaning and try to claim things that were meant that never were and as such certain inalienable rights should be spelled out to explicitly protect them, even though the constitution explicitly states that unless something is explicitly spelled out as a power granted to the government, then it's something the government isn't allowed to do. Source, the first paragraph of the constitution. Seriously, read up on the history of the bill of rights, you might learn something about how governments grow, corrupt and pervert things and how the framers of the constitution worked to try to subvert that sort of behavior.

    21. Re: Because car were not constructed to kill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nor does the term "regulated" mean in the 18th century what it means today. It's a little archaic but I can still say that my bowels are well regulated because I don't walk around the street spraying poop all over everybody as I walk by...

    22. Re:Because car were not constructed to kill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I probably shouldn't bother, but you have a profoundly mistaken view of why 5.56mm was adopted. The *real* reason it was adopted was because the US did so. There were hold outs, but eventually we won. The US adopted 5.56mm because you could carry more rounds for the same weight and at that time we had realized battlefield accuracy was non-existent and suppressive fire more important (which requires more rounds).[1] The counterargument was that 5.56mm (compared to 7.62mm) had less range, penetration and killing power. All of which are true, but weren't really relevant to the US.

      Even though qualification involves shooting at targets from 50m to 300m, the normal range for combat is much closer to 50m. Better range is really immaterial.

      Lower penetration is a tactical consideration: an opponent needs less to make an effective barrier. But the principles of warfare practiced by the US were not concerned with that (M60 and other weapons are effective against lightly barricaded opponents).

      Lower killing power is just insignificant. While one can argue the greater killing power of 7.62mm (e.g., from kinetic energy) the truth is it takes very little kinetic energy to kill, its more about placement. And, in reality, bullets are not placed accurately in warfare so it is really not relevant.

      The original 5.56mm round had a thin canelure which resulted in it fragmenting after penetration when it turned sideways. Unfortunately for the myth-makers, this takes some feet of penetration to occur and is only relevant on the most outlandish of bullet paths through the body.

      Incidentally, if it were in fact true that the 5.56mm was adopted for purposes of fragmentation that would put it at odds with Geneva convention. But it is moot anyway since the revised 5.56mm (which was paired with adoption of the revised M16 somewhere more than 20 years ago) went with a heavier bullet that does not suffer from the thin canelure.

      There are weird and bizarre stories floated about firearms that are believed and repeated by naive gun afficianados. The much-loved .45 ACP/M1911 was one such, and originally the M16 was derided (if its made by Matel it is swell, referring to the lightweight and perceived toy nature of the M16). The fragmenting nature of the early 5.56mm ammunition is but one of these stories that gets repeated until it is believed.

      And that nonsense about rifles vs muskets and sharpshooting... Apparently you are completely oblivious to both US and military history. Such as when rifles were actually adopted versus used by some civilians, or the fact that, outside of a few engagements (I can only think of one, but I don't feel like looking it up so I'll give the number some benefit of the doubt) we fought with the same Napoleonic tactics as the British did. Because they worked. Unfortunately, the British army had better discipline and training and mostly kicked our butts. Fortunately, the British weren't that invested in profit-less colonies who refused to pay a tax that defrayed the cost of protecting them. So, in the end, they let us go. But you should note that they hung on to profitable territories even to the extent of committing atrocities (India comes to mind).

      In fact, Napoleonic tactics kept working right up until rapid fire weapons were adopted and machine guns and tanks ruined things. But lingering use of the tactics was a major contributor to the death tolls as militaries sorted things out.

      1) Eventually, this notion resulted in three-round burst capability and there were in fact weapons systems designed around the notion of increasing hit probability and lethality by firing three rounds instead of one. For example, the .22 SCAMP or the 4.7mm caseless rifle the germans considered. The latter had such a high cyclic rate that the third round (according to Janes) exited the barrel before the recoil impulse from the first round was felt. Regardless, the special 3-round burst mode was insanely fast. This was an effort to improve the lethality of

    23. Re:Because car were not constructed to kill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The term "decimation" comes from a roman disciplinary measure. If a particular unit showed cowardice in combat every 10th man was executed. Being "decimated" was a mark of really bad performance, not a synonym for being slaughtered by the enemy.

    24. Re:Because car were not constructed to kill by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      So, where's your well regulated militia?

      Oh, look. Another person who can't read.

      Here, let's use some modern conversational English so you can't pretend you don't understand what the framers were saying (which they also explained to you in numerous other documents, transcripts, letters and the like, which you're also pretending you don't know about):

      "It looks like we can't have a nice new country without having at least some sort of standing professional military. Nobody in government is allowed to use the existence of that military as a reason to deny individuals their right to keep and bear their own arms."

      Of course you already knew that's what the second amendment means, and you're just pretending to be dumb about it so you can attempt to prop up a long-standing lie from the nanny state types.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    25. Re:Because car were not constructed to kill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get that from the text on a naive reading. It certainly fits, but in 2018, it's not obvious to me that that's what it means.

      My interpretation was that it's explanatory - We need people familiar with weapons to be able to form a militia. People must be allowed to own and practice with them.

      The explanation you've presented, while new to me, makes more sense now that I've heard it. It explains the strong tone of the second clause, which reads more like an affirmation of an inalienable right than the establishment of a legislative right for a particular purpose, and explains why the first clause was included at all.

      Guess I should probably read some of those federalist papers or something.

      Either way, though, it should be obvious to everyone that honest gun control requires a constitutional amendment to grant the government that authority.

  29. Re:And nothing of value was lost... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And yet, when you look in the news (including MSM) at who's wearing masks, attacking people, destroying property, suppressing speech, excoriating people to *actually* kill others and creating riots, it ain't the right.

  30. Where are the anti censorship comments? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on I thought slashdot was full of smart people? Censorship is ok if you don't agree with it because it's a private company but private companies can't choose not to bake a cake? Get off it guys.

  31. Wow, left wing takes out right wing - ACCIDENT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hate liars. It's akin to being a murderer.

  32. It's only a matter of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The powers that be have proscription lists ready for any eventuality. They're coming for you next.

  33. The nature of this "mistake" by civilwaradvocate · · Score: 1

    These bans were probably done by a machine-learning computer program.

    The real dangers of automation are not in job losses, but loss of the ability to live our lives in the face of monolithic corporations usurping proper governmental authority.

    Humanity is in the midst of a speciation event.
    On one hand, you have traditional human beings, with intelligence, wisdom, spirituality, etc.
    On the other hand, you have an elite that have self-selected their genetics, culture, personality, etc. for blind, all-consuming greed, and their hordes of brainwashed slaves.

    You have to pick a side.

  34. Re:Sure it was... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You obviously do not understand just how difficult it is to modify the Constitution.

  35. Mistakenly... by Marful · · Score: 1

    ... lol!

    Suuuuuure they "mistakenly" pulled them.

  36. Re:And nothing of value was lost... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The main problem is that people slap labels on large groups of people and then think all of them are the same. It was stupid when people did it to black people and it's stupid when people do it to white people. It's stupid when people do it to republicans and it's stupid when people do it to democrats. We should be coming together, not standing around flipping "the other people" the bird. It's not only pointless, it's fucking dangerous.

  37. "mistakenly" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mistakenly. ROFL.

    nobody cares anymore. don't need to lie. CNN get caught in really stupid lies every day. youtube, and others every now and then. Or sometimes its like, just a whoopsie, you know.

  38. You're a MOOLEY punk no dick liar PopeFatzo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Posting anonymously now? You called the 1st lady a whore today https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11801469&cid=56198439/ ?

    Your paid for (supposed) 'wife' IS a whore you coward https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11806784&cid=56202329/ hahahahaha!

    Let HER read that, ok? Oh, she KNOWS you have no balls (& your photo shows you have NO DICK too, lol).

    * THEN Let's see you prove what you say about yourself liar...

    APK

    P.S.=> Come on, "MOOLEY"! You say you're Sicilian - you understand that & you've admitted it - I am INSULTING YOU & your alleged WIFE (some mailorder whore) in the most insulting manner there is to Sicilians - do something about it! I offered & YOU RAN - you have NO BALLS & you're a shitbag liar & coward - you just proved it... apk

  39. BULLSHIT! by slashmydots · · Score: 1, Interesting

    SJW activist were seen and screenshotted to be talking about joining the youtube heroes program and the moderation contractors to purposely only take down anti-conservative content and let absolutely anything liberal through, even massively perverted gay and trans content. This is NO ACCIDENT.

    1. Re:BULLSHIT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation needed... Where were they "seen and screenshotted"?
      Or is this something someone like Alex Jones reports that someone says that someone else saw somewhere sometime?

  40. PopeFATZO = mooley druggie liar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Answer 3 questions & prove things you say about yourself: 1.) Are you paid off by Soros to spew crap https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11729899&cid=56102973/ & https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11669511&cid=56024869/ or are those 2 links just you lying?

    2.) You're a PhD in English (lol - a degree for idiots) & you were a "pwufessuh" (those who can DO, those who CAN'T, teach fatzo)??

    3.) You're a martial artist (lol, maybe in the old Ninja Gaiden game) too??

    On that 3rd one - just to let you TRY PROVE IT fairly?

    Come try prove that w/ me directly fatboy - you're the RICH MAN, take a flight here & we'll see what's what on that - No weapons, just man to man (you're no man though).

    No threat either: Who'd I 'threaten'? YOU, you FAKE NAME for a FAKE LIE OF A LIFE Mooley - you're all LIES & not even REAL behind your FAKE NAME for your FAKE LIE of a "life", lol.

    You called the 1st lady a whore today https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11801469&cid=56198439/ ?

    Your ALLEGED WIFE's a whore MOOLEY https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11806784&cid=56202673/ so let her read that you no balls (& certainly no dick per your photo) punk.

    Bugs Bunny's better than you & I'm challenging a fake in yourself. A grotesque DELUSIONAL liar & mere caricature in yourself (just like bugs bunny), nothing more.

    * By the way: CNN & Anderson Cooper disappearing nose greenscreen work is ALL ANYONE NEEDS TO SEE about "Cock Nozzle Network", lol!

    APK

    P.S.=> Either way you answer, you're cornered (like the "RATZO" you are): You're either a LIAR or you're a 'souled-out' traitor PopeFATZO!

    Do I blame you? Yes!

    HOWEVER:

    I understand your motives (desperation) & what makes you a perfect candidate for Soros hiring you (He goes for easily paid off disgruntled losers & heroin/meth junkies looking for 'fix' $) You're so FAT & UGLY you deformed MUTANT https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QqAn6jRY748/UP906Z4OONI/AAAAAAAAMBw/4UJL1sLYx2E/s1600/Gun+Nut+Article+for+Bell+of+Lost+Souls2.jpg// you need money to TRY to get laid (& even THEN, you get zero)... apk

  41. PopeFATZO let's see who lies... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Answer 3 questions & prove things you say about yourself: 1.) Are you paid off by Soros to spew crap https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11729899&cid=56102973/ & https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11669511&cid=56024869/ or are those 2 links just you lying?

    2.) You're a PhD in English (lol - a degree for idiots) & you were a "pwufessuh" (those who can DO, those who CAN'T, teach fatzo)??

    3.) You're a martial artist (lol, maybe in the old Ninja Gaiden game) too??

    On that 3rd one - just to let you TRY PROVE IT fairly?

    Come try prove that w/ me directly fatboy - you're the RICH MAN, take a flight here & we'll see what's what on that - No weapons, just man to man (you're no man though).

    No threat either: Who'd I 'threaten'? YOU, you FAKE NAME for a FAKE LIE OF A LIFE Mooley - you're all LIES & not even REAL behind your FAKE NAME for your FAKE LIE of a "life", lol.

    You called the 1st lady a whore today https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11801469&cid=56198439/ ?

    Your ALLEGED WIFE's a whore MOOLEY https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11806784&cid=56202673/ so let her read that you no balls (& certainly no dick per your photo) punk.

    Bugs Bunny's better than you & I'm challenging a fake in yourself. A grotesque DELUSIONAL liar & mere caricature in yourself (just like bugs bunny), nothing more.

    * By the way: CNN & Anderson Cooper disappearing nose greenscreen work is ALL ANYONE NEEDS TO SEE about "Cock Nozzle Network", lol!

    APK

    P.S.=> Either way you answer, you're cornered (like the "RATZO" you are): You're either a LIAR or you're a 'souled-out' traitor PopeFATZO!

    Do I blame you? Yes!

    HOWEVER:

    I understand your motives (desperation) & what makes you a perfect candidate for Soros hiring you (He goes for easily paid off disgruntled losers & heroin/meth junkies looking for 'fix' $) You're so FAT & UGLY you deformed MUTANT https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QqAn6jRY748/UP906Z4OONI/AAAAAAAAMBw/4UJL1sLYx2E/s1600/Gun+Nut+Article+for+Bell+of+Lost+Souls2.jpg// you need money to TRY to get laid (& even THEN, you get zero)... apk

  42. Yes. by cmseagle · · Score: 1

    Yes. A new moderator mistakenly believed that a channel was against Youtube's content policy and removed the channel. This isn't a "Whoops! Wrong button!" mistake.

  43. PopeFATZO let's see who lies... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Answer 3 questions & prove things you say about yourself: 1.) Are you paid off by Soros to spew crap https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11729899&cid=56102973/ & https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11669511&cid=56024869/ or are those 2 links just you lying?

    2.) You're a PhD in English (lol - a degree for idiots) & you were a "pwufessuh" (those who can DO, those who CAN'T, teach fatzo)??

    3.) You're a martial artist (lol, maybe in the old Ninja Gaiden game) too??

    On that 3rd one - just to let you TRY PROVE IT fairly?

    Come try prove that w/ me directly fatboy - you're the RICH MAN, take a flight here & we'll see what's what on that - No weapons, just man to man (you're no man though).

    No threat either: Who'd I 'threaten'? YOU, you FAKE NAME for a FAKE LIE OF A LIFE Mooley - you're all LIES & not even REAL behind your FAKE NAME for your FAKE LIE of a "life", lol.

    You called the 1st lady a whore today https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11801469&cid=56198439/ ?

    Your ALLEGED WIFE's a whore MOOLEY https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11806784&cid=56202673/ so let her read that you no balls (& certainly no dick per your photo) punk.

    Bugs Bunny's better than you & I'm challenging a fake in yourself. A grotesque DELUSIONAL liar & mere caricature in yourself (just like bugs bunny), nothing more.

    * By the way: CNN & Anderson Cooper disappearing nose greenscreen work is ALL ANYONE NEEDS TO SEE about "Cock Nozzle Network", lol!

    APK

    P.S.=> Either way you answer, you're cornered (like the "RATZO" you are): You're either a LIAR or you're a 'souled-out' traitor PopeFATZO!

    Do I blame you? Yes!

    HOWEVER:

    I understand your motives (desperation) & what makes you a perfect candidate for Soros hiring you (He goes for easily paid off disgruntled losers & heroin/meth junkies looking for 'fix' $) You're so FAT & UGLY you deformed MUTANT https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QqAn6jRY748/UP906Z4OONI/AAAAAAAAMBw/4UJL1sLYx2E/s1600/Gun+Nut+Article+for+Bell+of+Lost+Souls2.jpg// you need money to TRY to get laid (& even THEN, you get zero)... apk

  44. Nope not directly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Justice department is a justice issue. It has no mandate on health issue. The CDC does. Which is why it was a great shame that the SOLE agency studying gun violence was actually de-funded to do it.

  45. Cars are used far more than guns by aepervius · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I am ranting with "uuur guuuns" because people spout excuse for the gun lobby without thinking twice and I am an old coger enough that those issue were clarified again and again and again but the same BS keep cropping up (see same thing with global warming). Looking at *absolute* number of death is one of those tactic. Yes cars kill more people in absolute. But this is a wrong number to compare, you have to compare per hour of driving usage, to per hour of gun usage or a similar statistic. Cars are used far far more per capita than guns are carried. Thus what appears in absolute a bigger number, is actually factually per capita/per hours usage a much lower number. So the 12 fatality per 100K for car comapred to the suicide+murder of In 2013 the United States' firearm-related death rate was 10.7 deaths for every 100K inhabitants , or murder solely 3.5K per 100K you quickly see that due to the huge usage per hours of day of cars, or even their *predominant* presence in every corner city or rural, that gun are far far far more dangerous than cars by order of magnitude.

    Facit : compare what is comparable. If you start comparing absolute number, then chance is that you are trying to push an agenda. You gotta make sure numbers are on a valid scale. Nuff said. Feel free to rant about me.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Cars are used far more than guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd believe you if you were ranting about licenses to carry firearms and not the ability to own them.

      If you start comparing absolute number, then chance is that you are trying to push an agenda.

      I'm pushing an agenda just as much as you are. The facts are facts, cars are a far greater threat to Americans than guns. You can try to explain that away with how cars are used more often but that doesn't dismiss that cars are not designed to kill while guns are.

      Guns are for killing, and there are enough of them in the USA to arm every man, woman, child, and household pet. There is a smaller number of vehicles in the USA, and it is something that has been designed with great care to be safe. Yet motor vehicle deaths are far higher than anything from gun violence.

      If there is a gun problem in the USA then it's the restrictions on people being able to own and carry guns to defend themselves from those that wish to do them harm.

      I'm an "old codger" too. I can remember five years ago when VP Biden had his interview explaining to Americans that they don't need an AR-15 but should instead buy a double barrel shotgun. America didn't listen. I'm happy for that. Gun control is a losing tactic. Make fun of the 5 million NRA members if you like but they outnumber the gun grabbers, and they vote. There is a midterm election coming and the Democrats were looking good to gain some seats until they started ranting on gun control.

    2. Re:Cars are used far more than guns by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Cars are used far far more per capita than guns are carried.

      Right there, you show either your ignorance on the subject or your deliberate attempt to misinform.

      What do you mean by "carry?" The vast, vast majority of gun owners don't "carry" a gun at all. By far (not counting law enforcement and armed guards), the most common actual carriers are criminals who are not allowed to possess guns, and who are typically carrying a stolen or fraudulently procured firearm.

      Setting aside the criminals who are already breaking existing laws, that leaves the law abiding people who carry. In states where carry permits are issued and can thus be easily cross referenced to criminal activity, you'll find - as I'm sure you're already aware, but are pretending you don't know so you can engage in rhetorical distraction - that people who carry are among the safest (in terms of accidents involving guns) and by far the most law-abiding demographic in the country. Private citizens who carry are charged and convicted with fewer crimes of any kind (let alone violent crimes involving guns) than even law enforcement officers are.

      So even if we take you seriously in your requirement to consider "hours of use" in "carried guns," your notion is pointless unless you break that down in to "legally" and "illegally." Because the legal bunch often carry through most of their waking hours, and commit the least crime of any group you'd like to offer up. That makes their "murders per hour of use" number, effectively, zero. Your need to include criminals already banned from possessing guns carrying illegally procured/possessed guns in your numbers illustrates how well you know that you're deliberately trying to mislead. When it's that obvious that you're willing to engage in deceit in order to present your political narrative, why should we even consider anything you're saying?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  46. What Nationwide Debate? by nagora · · Score: 1

    Facebook is international and, as far as I know, pretty well every country in the world is happy to have - or wished it had - effective gun controls so there's not a lot of debate.

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    1. Re:What Nationwide Debate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean countries or our "illustrious leaders" want the gun control?
      Remember. Historically only slaves cant own a gun.

    2. Re:What Nationwide Debate? by nagora · · Score: 1

      No, I mean "countries". The American attitude to guns is basically a mental illness. Don't assume that the rest of us share it.

      As to slaves: you live in fear of your children, friends, or yourself being murdered by some lunatic every day; is is you who is the slave.

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  47. JEWgle's JUDENTube (know thy enemy) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in 1940 under Peron, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms, Spanish inquistion & Spain 1492 (Christopher Columbus the jew https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22C... sailed to the US for them to create it) and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above. Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud. This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

    Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

    John Podesta Hillary's pal again, is another JUDE with a pedophile brother (both = satanists too imo).

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer â" so I wasnâ(TM)t lying â" and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveâ Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

    Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    Bernie Madoff (who

  48. The only mistake... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... was reinstating those channels and videos.

  49. It was just a mistake! by civilwaradvocate · · Score: 1

    Don't hold us accountable for our actions, we have an excuse!

  50. Re:And nothing of value was lost... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are still fighting the Cold War, as trained to do for generations. Only they've wiped out their enemies and need to make imaginary Socialists and Communists to justify their very existence.

  51. ae911truth dot org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    9-11 was a Jew job

  52. SPLC is in charge by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=O-LXSbgzgBo

    1. Re:SPLC is in charge by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Great, so an organization infamous for smearing people with whom they have political disagreements, and which receives huge cash endowments from partisan operators and which can be seen as dedicated to changing first amendment protections to more of a government permit arrangement for speech ... is "in charge" of removing political speech. That's great.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  53. Google's laughable manipulation of search results by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Look up the following on images.google.com

    American inventors
    white inventors
    white couples
    white women with children
    white man and white woman
    European history people

    If you think the search results are coincidental, try searching "Asian couples" or "black inventors" or something.

  54. They left get plenty of this by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    but they're not very noticeable. Right wing media has heavy duty backing from wealthy interests who want to see deregulation happen. The left wing media is just a bunch of guys with patreon accounts and a few donations. And no, MSNBC is not left wing.

    So you hear about the right wing media because they've got the money to get noticed. As always, follow the money.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:They left get plenty of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MSNBC is NOT left-wing? Ok you've blown the shred of credibility i still allowed you to have. You've defecated your sleeping area.

      rofl captcha: excreted

    2. Re:They left get plenty of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. It goes really like this :
      "The left wing media is just a bunch of guys with Soros accounts and a fukton of his money."

  55. The line's pretty clear by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Google can do what they want with their private service. It's not a free speech issue until the government censors.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  56. Nothing new here by thunderclees · · Score: 1

    Nothing to see here, move along. It's just Alphabet outsourced labor enforcing the views given to them by their tech overlords.
    This happened during the last election and will happen during the next one and for any other issue Alphabets overlords deem necessary.

    “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” - George Orwell

  57. Mistakenly? by sproketboy · · Score: 1

    My ass

  58. Fuck your American bullshit narrative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ukraine lacking them (they disarmed after assurances from the West that we'd protect them from invasion) is what allowed Russia to waltz in and grab Crimea.

    That's the CNN narrative.

    The reality is NATO kept building bases around Moscow and then the US spent billions to topple the elected government of Ukraine (through Soros/Nuland/etc).

    Crimea historically has always been part of Russia, it's population is 90% russians, it was given to Ukraine in recent years through a stroke of the pen.

    The Crimeans saw what the US did to Ukraine, voted to join Russia, so Russia accepted it.

    So it's the election that allowed Russia to take Crimea, and the nuked stopped the evil US from retaliating.

  59. Mass murders still happen by tomhath · · Score: 1

    You do realize that the worse mass murder in a US school did not involve a gun, don't you?

    1. Re:Mass murders still happen by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      You do realize that has absolutely no bearing on anything and that if you think you're making some kind of point, you're actually not?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:Mass murders still happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize you're a complete moron with an IQ of 0 and no one gives a care about what you think, right?

    3. Re:Mass murders still happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, and I'm going to pop into Home Depot to get me some dynamite and pyrotol....

  60. bye bye youtube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Youtube take downs will be its demise. Too many legitimately pissed off people right now.

  61. Gay wedding cake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I don't have to bake a cake for gay weddings?

    Oops, you screamed and won and don't like the results?

  62. Re:PopeFATZO let's see who lies... apk by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure APK is my first wife doing performance art.

    APK

    P.S.=>PopeRatdick has a tiny pecker and tried to mack on my best friend.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  63. Strange Equivalence These Days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one perturbed by the idea that white supremacy and batshit, oft-dangerous conspiracy theories are now considered to be under the wing of all conservatism? If they get attacked, I often see people see this as an attack on the Right in general. Why? That is not to say that Right-leaning media that do not fit these guidelines may not have been targeted, but why is the Right so gung-ho about ensuring companies pay for the messages of white supremacists or people like Alex Jones? If I throw a party at my house and one person says "I think Trump is a fascist" and another says "Black people should be eradicated" and I only boot the person who promoted genocide, am I unfairly impeding their free speech? Must I allow them to stay in my house if I don't boot the anti-Trump person?

    I've been on the Internet long enough to know that IRC channels, BBS's, AOL chat rooms, forums and many more have had rules that, if broken, can get you kicked or banned. If I break a rule, I get kicked/banned or my thread/message gets deleted. If the rules aren't clear and I get punished for something that isn't clear, that is obviously a problem with their process and it should be rectified (as it seems they are doing here). If there was a wholesale ban against conservatism, I definitely understand, but is that actually happening? I guarantee you I can find a bunch of conservative videos right now on Youtube.

    If you want a battle royale, go to 4chan.

    1. Re:Strange Equivalence These Days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alex Jones and a "white supremacists"?
      Are you even listened what he says? He speaks for all humans, and does not talk about some "white privilege". He says himself that he does not care what color a human is. He only cares that a human should help other humans to reach peak performance in life.
      But sometimes talks about a lot how the government gave syphilis to black communities by design, and how horrible it was. How government is dumbing down black communities using school system, and that blacks must resist it.

      He has a ton of black, latino, asian callers and reporters and workers.

  64. Blew the "i" flag. Sorry 'bout that. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    We're on the same page,

    The first line of my previous post was a quote from the one I was replying to (with me pointing out other reasons that starting your own was impractical)

    Sorry for any confusion.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  65. If you believe the kids are actors.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...you are scum, you deserve to die.

    1. Re:If you believe the kids are actors.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To this date NO VIDEO has been brought forward by any news outlet proving that Alex Jones or anyone at Infowars called the students crisis actors.

      In fact, all Infowars has done is point out that only a few students out of thousands were promoted by the mainstream media for their anti-gun stance, and presented clips from local media of other students and teachers giving their accounts of the Parkland shooting that left 17 dead.

      The truth is, the corporate media is deliberately misrepresenting what Infowars has reported not only to pressure tech companies like YouTube to remove our content in the name of “preventing harassment and bullying,” but to silence debate about what actually happened at Parkland to control the narrative.

  66. Re:Google's laughable manipulation of search resul by tbannist · · Score: 1

    The first one is easily explained "African-American Inventor" contains the substring "American Inventor". The problem with the rest is that most of the time none of them are identified as "white". Take Alexander Graham Bell's wikipedia page, for example. The word "white" only appears in name of a plane that Bell helped to develop, meanwhile the top result for "white inventor" is a black man who had to hire a white actor to pretend to be him to sell his inventions. It's not notable to most people that a couple is white, or that a woman with children is white, or that a man and a woman are white. The last term is more of the same, if you understand that Europeans do not often consider themselves to be "European" and instead they are British, French, German, etc. then the results again make sense because the term European is again used most often to identify historical figures who are not European.

    Try searching for:
    famous inventor (inventor just returns CAD images)
    couples
    women with children
    man and woman
    history people

    And you'll see that most of the pictures are white people.

    This doesn't look like result manipulation, it looks like the terms that you listed are most often used when the picture does not conform to the terms. It's certain counter-intuitive, but it's what anyone with an actual understanding of exactly how dumb algorithms can be would expect from page rank in these circumstances. Contrary to your claim, the results actually seem to be pretty clear evidence that Google is not manipulating these search results or the results would be better.

    --
    Fanatically anti-fanatical