Thursday, September 15, 2016

Now YouTube are censoring videos critical of the establishment.

A few days ago, after examining evidence offered by certain bloggers who defend net neutrality we reported that allegations against Google of blocking access to sites that criticise Hillary Clinton's presidential election campaign or raise questions bout the candidate's very obvious health problems is is pretty irrevocable. Since then a reader mailed us an item on how YouTube are censoring videos whose content is critical of government or does not follow the government line on controversial issues such as tion.climate change or illegal immigration

Earlier this month, YouTube, was accused of censoring users who post political content. The site's management, and owners, Google, claim what is happening is not censorship but 'demonetisation' of content not suitable to be associated with advertising.

Claiming videos had been barred from making money through the company’s ad services, well esablished YouTube hosts like Philip DeFranco spoke out against the policy, claiming over “a dozen of his videos had been flagged as inappropriate for advertising, including one dinged for ‘graphic content or excessive strong language." Now while that, of itself, does not constitute censorship, if we are talking about net neutrality and freedom of expression it quickly becomes clear that the videos being censored are conservative, Christian or libertarian, while videos that are pure propaganda for a progressive liberal, politically correct, globalist agenda are being accepted even when they are full of untruths and misrepresentation. 

In a video entitled “YouTube Is Shutting Down My Channel and I’m Not Sure What To Do,” DeFranco called YouTube’s policy “censorship with a different name,” since users touching on what the company considers to be controversial subjects end up losing money. “If you do this on the regular, and you have no advertising,” DeFranco added, “it’s not sustainable.”

While YouTube has already confirmed its policy regarding what it considers unfit for monetization hasn’t changed, the issue might lie elsewhere now that the company seems more efficient in enforcing its own rules. As a matter of fact, the content policy changed in 2012, when YouTube first introduced its “ad-friendly” guidelines.

But while an algorithm is allegedly used to spot and “de-monetize” videos that break the company’s rules, many continue to accuse the company, currently owned by Google, of having “vague” descriptions of what its leadership considers ad-friendly.

YouTube rolled out its monetization tool in 2006, when ads consisted of videos that would pop up at the bottom of the user’s screen. If the user did not click on it, it would roll for about ten seconds before going away. But as ad executives pressured YouTube to “to do a better job at promoting its creators,” the relationship with its advertisers changed. As better and even more intrusive ads were added to YouTube videos, the company allegedly became more concerned with the content.

Those who are affected often complain about copyright claims, but some complain about another type of targeting — one that involves power players.

On this site we carry some ads but not with any serious intention of making money, they serve as separators between sections of content more than anything. Even so we have noticed our traffic take a serious dive since we started reporting on Hillary Clinton's health issues.

The irony is that while this blog scores very moderately for traffic and is really most useful for getting new content indexed quickly, extended versions of most posts appearing here are posted on our main site which is indexed by search engines in China, India, Russia and around the world. And we don't mind people using our content, it is trying to get ideas out that matter, not pulling in money. So a very big chunk of the global population that cannot be controlled by Google have the opportunity to read our content.


Judge Denies Attempt To Block Obama's Transfer Of Internet Oversight To UN

October 2016: In a last ditch effort to block Obama's plan to allow the US Commerce Department to hand over oversight of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to a multi-stakeholder community - which includes the technical community, businesses, civil society and foreign governments - 4 state attorneys went to a Texas federal court alleging that the transition, in the absence of congressional approval, amounts to an illegal forfeiture of U.S. government property. Confirming once more that under Obama's Presidency the judiciary and legal system have been totally politicised, their case was thrown out on a technicality.

Fact Checker Snopes Lie About Obama ‘Birther’ Smear.
Yesterday US Presidential candidate Donald Trump said that President Barack Obama was born in the U.S., and by doing so he “finished a birther controversy” which he said was started by Hillary Clinton in 2008. “Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy. I finished it, I finished it. You know what I mean," he told a campaign event audience.

Free speech threat
Importance of free speech
Free speech censored
Free speech being abolished?
Threat to the free press
Free Speech murdered - omnibus
Germany begins internet censorship
Robot censors for internet?
University censorship
Surveillance society: cellphone fascism

Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] ... [ Daily Stirre.shtml ]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]... [ Ian's Authorsden Pages ]... [Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... [ Latest Posts ] [Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] ... [Latest Posts] ... [ Tumblr ] ... [Ian at Minds ] ... [ Authorsden blog ] ... [Daily Stirrer News Aggregator]

No comments: