Talk Radio banned from YouTube!
Discussion
It would appear that Talk Radio's YouTube channel has been pulled down by YouTube!
Talk Radio has continually questioned government action over the COVID 19 situation. It appears that YouTube has decided that this is not allowed anymore.
Given how big YouTube is (I think it's the second biggest web site in the world after Google), that's quite something!
Talk Radio has continually questioned government action over the COVID 19 situation. It appears that YouTube has decided that this is not allowed anymore.
Given how big YouTube is (I think it's the second biggest web site in the world after Google), that's quite something!
Its nice having the unelected owners of big tech companies regulate freedom of opinion for 'us' all isn't it? (sarcastic comment of course)
Sure 'we' can turn to other platforms for broadcasting but their owners are also free to regulate our opinions.
Just wonder when big tech platforms will be recognised as publishers that they obviously are?
Sure 'we' can turn to other platforms for broadcasting but their owners are also free to regulate our opinions.
Just wonder when big tech platforms will be recognised as publishers that they obviously are?
I'm not sure how many times this needs to be said, but private media platforms are perfectly entitled to restrict their users and content however they see fit.
Ignoring all the other 'almost heading towards hate speech' videos that Talk Radio put on their Youtube channel, and focussing just on Coronavirus, Youtube rules clearly state that the following content is banned:
1) Content that discourages people from consulting a medical professional or seeking medical advice.
2) Content that promotes diagnostic methods that contradict local health authorities or WHO.
3) Content that disputes the efficacy of local health authorities’ or WHO’s guidance on physical distancing or self-isolation measures to reduce transmission of COVID-19.
It seems that Talk Radio only have themselves to blame by posting things that clearly beach the rules they agreed to when they signed up.
If they want to host stuff that is against YouTube rules, then they should just host it on their own website.
If people don't like it they can set up their own video hosting page and fill it with as much crap as they like. Like Parler as a rival to Twitter for example.
Ignoring all the other 'almost heading towards hate speech' videos that Talk Radio put on their Youtube channel, and focussing just on Coronavirus, Youtube rules clearly state that the following content is banned:
1) Content that discourages people from consulting a medical professional or seeking medical advice.
2) Content that promotes diagnostic methods that contradict local health authorities or WHO.
3) Content that disputes the efficacy of local health authorities’ or WHO’s guidance on physical distancing or self-isolation measures to reduce transmission of COVID-19.
It seems that Talk Radio only have themselves to blame by posting things that clearly beach the rules they agreed to when they signed up.
If they want to host stuff that is against YouTube rules, then they should just host it on their own website.
If people don't like it they can set up their own video hosting page and fill it with as much crap as they like. Like Parler as a rival to Twitter for example.
Not seen TalkRadio do any of that.
What they have done is exactly what journalists are supposed to do, ask questions and hold people (and governments) to account. The sort of stuff the BBC used to do once upon a time...
You're right, YouTube's trainset, YouTube can decide who plays with it. However when the world's largest tech company starts reigning in free speech, I see that as extremely sinister.
What they have done is exactly what journalists are supposed to do, ask questions and hold people (and governments) to account. The sort of stuff the BBC used to do once upon a time...
You're right, YouTube's trainset, YouTube can decide who plays with it. However when the world's largest tech company starts reigning in free speech, I see that as extremely sinister.
Lord Marylebone said:
I'm not sure how many times this needs to be said, but private media platforms are perfectly entitled to restrict their users and content however they see fit.
Ignoring all the other 'almost heading towards hate speech' videos that Talk Radio put on their Youtube channel, and focussing just on Coronavirus, Youtube rules clearly state that the following content is banned:
1) Content that discourages people from consulting a medical professional or seeking medical advice.
2) Content that promotes diagnostic methods that contradict local health authorities or WHO.
3) Content that disputes the efficacy of local health authorities’ or WHO’s guidance on physical distancing or self-isolation measures to reduce transmission of COVID-19.
It seems that Talk Radio only have themselves to blame by posting things that clearly beach the rules they agreed to when they signed up.
If they want to host stuff that is against YouTube rules, then they should just host it on their own website.
If people don't like it they can set up their own video hosting page and fill it with as much crap as they like. Like Parler as a rival to Twitter for example.
Why is it forbidden to question a diagnostic method? If that diagnostic method is sound, it should be able to stand up to scrutiny. Ignoring all the other 'almost heading towards hate speech' videos that Talk Radio put on their Youtube channel, and focussing just on Coronavirus, Youtube rules clearly state that the following content is banned:
1) Content that discourages people from consulting a medical professional or seeking medical advice.
2) Content that promotes diagnostic methods that contradict local health authorities or WHO.
3) Content that disputes the efficacy of local health authorities’ or WHO’s guidance on physical distancing or self-isolation measures to reduce transmission of COVID-19.
It seems that Talk Radio only have themselves to blame by posting things that clearly beach the rules they agreed to when they signed up.
If they want to host stuff that is against YouTube rules, then they should just host it on their own website.
If people don't like it they can set up their own video hosting page and fill it with as much crap as they like. Like Parler as a rival to Twitter for example.
Teddy Lop said:
Of course, that won't just feed the narrative they're trying to stop.
You tube and their ilk should be made to sit and watch the film 12 angry men. Spoiler: they didn't reach an agreement by gagging dissent.
They aren't trying to stop any narrative. They just don't want to host it on their privately owned site. The narrative can be continued and hosted anywhere else.You tube and their ilk should be made to sit and watch the film 12 angry men. Spoiler: they didn't reach an agreement by gagging dissent.
MXRod said:
Yet they allow Alex Belfield to continue his rants about the BBC , government , politics etc
May not agree with much of what he has to say, but even then I would not like to see unelected entities regulate freedom of opinion.Belfield can rant all day long for as long as I care, but he and everyone else should be allowed freedom of opinion - even if others don't agree or even some find it distasteful or choose to be "offended" by it.
The free market proponents will argue that You Tube are free to do what they like and that if viewers (or listeners) don't like what they are up to they are free to not watch or listen.
The problem is that they have become a very dominant player in the streaming world and have a massive share of the streaming pie - so there may not be an alternative with the same catchment or reach.
Should governments try to regulate these massive media outlets or should we let the market decide whether they survive or vanish?
The problem is that they have become a very dominant player in the streaming world and have a massive share of the streaming pie - so there may not be an alternative with the same catchment or reach.
Should governments try to regulate these massive media outlets or should we let the market decide whether they survive or vanish?
Ari said:
Not seen TalkRadio do any of that.
What they have done is exactly what journalists are supposed to do, ask questions and hold people (and governments) to account. The sort of stuff the BBC used to do once upon a time...
You're right, YouTube's trainset, YouTube can decide who plays with it. However when the world's largest tech company starts reigning in free speech, I see that as extremely sinister.
there's a wider concern about how much of societies debate is controlled and directed by a few corps - never more worrying than when we're all locked away from each other and relying on it as our means of interacting.What they have done is exactly what journalists are supposed to do, ask questions and hold people (and governments) to account. The sort of stuff the BBC used to do once upon a time...
You're right, YouTube's trainset, YouTube can decide who plays with it. However when the world's largest tech company starts reigning in free speech, I see that as extremely sinister.
This is usually where the forums leftists come along to defend the rights of global megacorps to act as they choose without oversight.
purplepenguin said:
Why is it forbidden to question a diagnostic method? If that diagnostic method is sound, it should be able to stand up to scrutiny.
As far as I can see, this isn't up for debate. YouTube have rules, the same as any private club/business. If you don't wish to abide by them you will be thrown out.There is no point in arguing about those rules as the owners of Youtube have decided on them.
If people want an 'unregulated' video hosting site they should just make one. There is nothing stopping them. Parler is the unrestricted version of Twitter, and is apparently popular with the sort of people who find Twitter too censored.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff