YouTube removes 300 ads for Trump's reelection campaign

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | General Discussion | YouTube removes 300 ads for Trump's reelection campaign

Viewing 8 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #321139
      L0oniX
      Moderator
      • Total Posts: 470

      YouTube has removed hundreds of ads for President Trump’s reelection campaign for violating its policies, an investigation by CBS News’s “60 Minutes” has found. More than 300 videos were removed from the platform, “60 Minutes” reported, citing transparency reports by Google, which owns YouTube.

      https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/youtube-removes-300-ads-trumps-161655852.html

      From Dec 2019 but still nice to see some take action against the asshole. I wish all the media had the guts to ban him from the air waves, Twitter and FB.

      Fuck the DNC and its heard of goats

    • #321145
      elias39
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 4,573

      ‘transparency reports’.  Not complaining. Can someone explain?

    • #321156
      Voltairine
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,760

      it was the fash that are against freedom of speech and for authoritarian censuring of opinions they don’t like. Well, to be honest, I still think that way. 🙂

      Aloha!

    • #321168
      Ohio Barbarian
      Moderator
      • Total Posts: 13,652

      Plus, this is political speech, the speech most protected by the First Amendment. I don’t like the idea of capitalist corporations having the right to shut down political speech. Google, for example, has hurt this site by the algorithms in its search engines that direct people in search of information on various topics to “trustworthy” media outlets such as MSNBC, WaPo, and Fox News, but seldom to JPR.

      If they shut down Trump, how long before they shut down Bernie, AOC, or you and me?

      Better to let Trump spout his bullshit than to allow this dangerous precedent to stand, IMO.

      It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

      If Democrats don’t stand for the people, why should people stand for them?--Jim Hightower

      • #321173
        PolecatHollerer
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 1,031

        .

        If you give a man enough rope, it will be six inches too short. This is not the nature of rope- it is the nature of man.

      • #321196
        closeupready
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 1,261

        No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act

        Now, I’m not a lawyer, but I can’t see how this survives – long-term – a challenge on constitutional grounds.  For many reasons.

        Not surprisingly, this was a Clinton-era law.

        The opinions and personal views expressed herein are solely those of the author, and should never be taken seriously.

        • #321200
          Voltairine
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 1,760

          is the cornerstone of Internet freedom of speech. There were enough somewhat sane lawmakers still supporting freedom of speech to amend the anti porn legislation with section 230 that makes ISP not liable for the content published on digital platforms.

          It protects also JPR and makes it possible for JPR to exist. Without Section 230 owners of JPR could be drowned with law suits and force this forum to shut down.

          Aloha!

      • #321198
        Voltairine
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 1,760

        Tulsi was already shadow banned etc. algo censured, together with so many other anti war voices. The “liberal” establishment of war mongers and corporate thugs and looters gave up long ago any and all attempt to make their case through rational dialogue… 😀

        Aloha!

      • #321291
        RufusTFirefly
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 2,285

        Don’t be so shortsighted as to cheer such actions when the recipient is someone you disdain or disagree with. That’s often how it works. Then once the policies are in place, the scope quickly widens and the mission creep continues. You may not be next, but the possibility looms.

        Paging Pastor Niemoller!

    • #321170
      jerry611
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 864

      If YouTube doesn’t want political ads, they got a lot of censoring to do.

    • #321177
      bazukhov
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,604

      YouTube is doing a good and decent thing in removing the likes of the ravings of a powerful and psychotic demagogue who preaches hate to ignorant and lazy idiots looking for a Great Leader to carry them to the promised land.

      Tell me, great captain, how do the angels sleep when the devil leaves his porch light on? Tom Waites

    • #321193
      Snort McDork
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 3,672

      He really looks tired and unsure what he is running for.

      “Yeah, I’m Joe, and I think I need some help in my campaign. Well, maybe, if you want to, I think, kinda, sorta……”

      Not very convincing if you ask me.

      I'm Snort McDork and I approved this message.

      "I like birdy num-nums"

    • #321194
      bazukhov
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,604

      Any more than JPR or Free Republic or DU is.

      I was banned from DU for speaking my mind about Hillary and Obama and other 3rd way pols.   They had every right to do so.   It never crossed my mind that they were interfering in my right of free speech.

      I see the actions of Twiiter and You Tube against Trump as acts against blatant indecency on the same level as child pornography.  Trump isn’t silenced nor are his cult members deprived of watching his ravings.

       

      Tell me, great captain, how do the angels sleep when the devil leaves his porch light on? Tom Waites

    • #321288
      game meat
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,216

      It makes sense because these things tend to be more self-serving and only ideological when it’s convenient. The cultural zeitgeist has moved in the direction where the shoe is on the other foot, more or less.

      The arguments are one and the same, however. Things need to be censored because what is being said is dangerous, indecent, on par with various acts of violence, and gosh darn it, it’s a matter of stopping the moral fabric of society from unraveling to the point where it is too late and there’s no going back. They’re all authoritarian, conservative arguments complete with the steadfast belief in the sanctity of private corporations to police things as they see fit. Nothing but rationalizations, whether it’s coming from moralizing Christians or hillbots and twitter sjws.  And it can all be summed as: “only people who say things I approve of should have the privilege.”

      But it doesn’t even matter anymore. This box is already open. But anybody cheering this has no right to complain when social media companies take the axe to someone who says things they like.

Viewing 8 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.