David Icke's Youtube channel deleted - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 04, 2020, 05:50:39 pm
content: I saw in the newspaper today some conspiracist channel got taken down.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/david-icke-youtube-page-coronavirus-conspiracy-theory-a9496236.htmlQuoteEdit:Got name wrong.A first I mistook it forDavidAnthony Steele until I saw a photo as mentioned in this thread about Street lamps, 5G and Nazis technology:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/lunatic-claims-5g-streetlighting-uses-nazi-weapon-technologies/DavidAnthony Steele's channel is still there with the conspiracy 5G stuff:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsAwM1EqcYXKeIEufJqwWjw

author: AlfBaz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 04, 2020, 06:08:36 pm
content: So we are pulling platforms from demented nutjobs, I guess that's the end of modern politics on social media then, especially orange ones

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 04, 2020, 07:17:21 pm
content: Woohoo some good news at last.Anthony Steele's channel is still up although he hasn't posted anything for a week. Hopefully the fucker has been bagged and tagged.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 04, 2020, 07:37:37 pm
content: Someone should have taken him out when he was a second rate sports reporter!(Icke)

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 04, 2020, 09:44:00 pm
content: QuoteLOL, what else on YT has to be approved by the UN?

author: mc172
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 04, 2020, 09:58:22 pm
content: Whilst this really is excellent news, it's also really bad news because it's "evidence that the main stream media don't want you to know THE TRUTH" etc etc...

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 04, 2020, 10:54:18 pm
content: Quote from: mc172 on May 04, 2020, 09:58:22 pmDon't worry, they screamed the same thing when we used to contain them in asylums.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 04, 2020, 11:04:11 pm
content: Quote from: mc172 on May 04, 2020, 09:58:22 pmThey will think that regardless. Do you really think any nut is ever convinced by even the most overwhelming body of evidence? Hell, even regular internet folk tend to stay their course in the face of strong evidence. Few will turn around and go "you know, you have a point".

author: DimitriP
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 04, 2020, 11:32:12 pm
content: There are two types of "unproven claims".Approved and dissaproved.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2020, 12:48:12 am
content: Quote from: Cyberdragon on May 04, 2020, 10:54:18 pmAsylums were horrible places, & empathetic people rightfully campaigned against them.They also cost a fortune to run.In an unlikely alliance of empathy & parsimony, they were closed down.Of course, as always "the baby was thrown out with the bath water", & the poor old "loonies" were left to wander the streets or run conspiracy theory websites.

author: John B
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2020, 02:23:54 am
content: Let's not forget the statement from the WHO promoting the idea that there was no evidence of human to human transmission of COVID-19.Without the ability to promote bad ideas, we also lack the ability to bring light to issues and facts that would otherwise be censored by authoritarian governments and organisations.“The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. COVID-19 had never been transmitted from human to human. COVID-19 had always been transmitted from human to human.”― George Orwell, probably

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2020, 04:21:36 am
content: How can anybody say covid 19 isnt real?

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2020, 04:48:41 am
content: Quote from: cdev on May 05, 2020, 04:21:36 amWell you can't see it, and if you're fortunate enough to live in an area where it hasn't hit hard then you can't really see the effects of it. If the actions taken to slow the spread work then it becomes even less visible. Even if a million people die most of us still won't personally know one of them. More so than that, many people are just in denial.In the mind of a conspiracy theorist everything on the news is a lie. I've seen a lot of people who don't understand the concept of a stock photo or realize how prevalent they are in news articles touting the fact that the same photo being used in two different articles "proves" that it's a fake story. Most people are smarter than that but a small minority can make a lot of noise.

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2020, 06:16:07 am
content: Quote from: cdev on May 05, 2020, 04:21:36 amHow can anybody say Earth is flat?

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2020, 06:29:15 am
content: Quote from: cdev on May 05, 2020, 04:21:36 amCovid is a real result of 5G deployment.Here, I did itSoon it will be a crime so hurry up if you want to post such things tooQuote from: John B on May 05, 2020, 02:23:54 amYes, and Polish government experts saying that masks are pointless and banning importing them from China, only to change their mind a few weeks later and mandate that everybody wears them outside for years until somebody comes up with effective treatment or a vaccine. Already a lot of people are starting to ignore that thing and I bet that if riots break over it in the middle of summer they will change their mind once again and even find some scientific justification. Politics is a farce.I mean, politics is politics, but taking politics seriously definitely is a farce and possible sign of autism

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 05, 2020, 07:06:33 am
content: Just like I said at the time with Alex Jones et.al, on principle I do not agree with removing channels like this. Or any channel for that matter unless the actually promote physical violence.Anyone who doesn't see the bigger picture here, be careful what you wish for.Youtube and other social media platforms get various publicly funded benefits, and the benefit of being legally protected as aplatform, yet they want their cake and to eat it to by acting as apublisher. This is not right.I would have no problem in principle with Youtube not promoting the content, or even demonetising the content, but I cannot agree with removing them from the platform entirely.Platform like Youtube should be politically neutral. And if you think this ultimately doesn't boil down to politics, you are wrong.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2020, 08:13:34 am
content: The subscribers were promoting burning phone towers in the comment section. Same as Anthony Steele. As much as I agree with your point, you have to draw a line somewhere as it does end in violence.Thatis not politics, but merely legitimising violence and that is not acceptable by their policy or anyone with any ethical standard.

author: Kevin.D
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2020, 09:14:50 am
content: Then you tube should have acted against the posters of those comment's or removed the comments or asked him to turn off or remove those comments on any of his videos that promoted illegal action. His video's don't contain anything illegal as far as I read and you tube shouldn't have removed them. If all it takes to get a video removed is for some of the comments to it promoting illegal activity then anyone who wants to get a video removed can portray themselves as a 'supporter' and post comments which are offensive or illegal.It's really sad that youtube have started to cow tow to what some or other pressure group (old media included in them) want because they disagreed with the ideas being portrayed. It's not illegal as far as I know to be a nut job or to have controversial or silly and outlandish views and ideas.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2020, 09:56:25 am
content: Anthony Steele for example was actually promoting the burning of phone towers specifically. Now I reported his videos to YT and they did nothing. Do you expect them to deal with comments if they can't deal with content producers?Having silly and outlandish views and ideas is fine. But promoting ideas which are directly harmful is a really big problem.Let's cite this as a fine example:https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20200408-600-people-die-in-iran-from-drinking-neat-alcohol-to-cure-coronavirus/

author: SerieZ
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2020, 10:03:42 am
content: You cheer now but next time they remove someone uncomfortable but reasonable. What then?I personally firmly believe (unless they are comitting a crime against Individuals like slander and such) Ideas should be challenged, not censored and I really ought to think the people here would understand the reasons as to why that is.And no, the loons who then go and commit crimes because of the crazy Ideas they heard should be judged for their crimes respectively and not collectively.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2020, 10:32:53 am
content: Well that's the thing isn't it. It's about balance. They didn't remove Icke, who has been talking crazy shit for years, until harm was actually done from people boosted by his ideas. And then there's the other point where intentionally harmful ideologies are promoted. I don't see any whining about the latter.As for judging people for their crimes respectively, it's probably better for society that we don't have victims where possible.But in this case we do have victims so case closed, all bets are off. We have had infrastructure destroyed and staff threatened and assaulted here.Where do you stand? I stand by case-by-case reason not a blanket free speech policy or blanket censorship both of which are harmful. Reason here is shutting a quite frankly stupid idea down.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 05, 2020, 10:52:16 am
content: Quote from: bd139 on May 05, 2020, 08:13:34 amReport the comments, that's why Youtube has a report function.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 05, 2020, 11:04:22 am
content: Quote from: Kevin.D on May 05, 2020, 09:14:50 amCorrect. Anyone could shut down one of my video or shut down my entire channel if you take this to it's logical conclusion. And if you think that hyperbole, I've already been threatened with this if I don't "modify my speech".And before anyone says "oh but this isobviouslybad" etc do you realise how many channels have already been shut down and are at risk of being shut down because of all of Youtube's political viewpoints disguised as Terms Of Service? It includes virtually all independent news channels among many other genres of content.This is where it leads, and this is why you have to defend the non-political "platform" nature of Youtube, or you risk losing everything.Itneverstops at Alex Jones or David Icke, or insert countless hundreds of other channels.QuoteNope, it's not illegal in the US, it's the old "Youtube is private company and can do whatever it wants" defense. That would be fine if Youtube et.al didn't get public monetary benefits and wasn't a strategic platform for politicians. So important that the US supreme court has ruled it so.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 05, 2020, 11:08:54 am
content: Quote from: SerieZ on May 05, 2020, 10:03:42 amOr worse, someonethey like or follow.QuoteSlander, no, not possible. Slander can only be determined by a judge in a court ruling.If Youtube is aplatformthen it should not matter what someone says. Although even extreme free speech advocated like myself have limits to this, like a call to violence.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 05, 2020, 11:20:24 am
content: Quote from: bd139 on May 05, 2020, 10:32:53 amNo, it was done now because it was politically expedient to do so. No one gave a toss about him before all this.He was not removed because of what people did with his rantings, he was specifically removed for "posting misleading information about the coronavirus pandemic."and I quote directly from Youtube:"YouTube has clear policies prohibiting any content that disputes the existence and transmission of Covid-19 as described by the WHO and the NHS,"Read that again, in particular the "transmission" part. You aren't even allowed to question the transmission mechanisms or your youtube account could be terminated.And remember, they didn't just remove one video, they deleted the entire channel.QuoteThat's the official reason he was booted.QuoteIf it was just this one person once during this crisis, I don't think many people would have a major problem with it. But therealproblem lies in a pattern of behavior at Youtube that has results in the removal ofhundredsof channels, and this will only get worse.This is why I spoke out about Alex Jones as it was clearly the "canary in the coal mine", the publisher thought police slippery slope, and I was 100% right. It will only continue to get worse if people don't speak about about it. And sadly people like you will only care when it's someone or some channel, or some genre of content you care about.

author: Muttley Snickers
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 05, 2020, 11:27:16 am
content: I'm not familiar with either of the creators mentioned nor any of their stuff but if they had such a large following then couldn't they just continue on another platform ?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 05, 2020, 12:20:36 pm
content: Quote from: Muttley Snickers on May 05, 2020, 11:27:16 amSure, but that's not discussion.FYI, I'm not familiar with them either, apart from David Icke having some popular viral video about the dangers of 5G.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2020, 12:26:54 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 05, 2020, 11:20:24 amExactly so what's the problem? Honstly Anthony Steel is still up there. Go and watch a few videos:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsAwM1EqcYXKeIEufJqwWjwHe has been reported to YT and Home office here so far several times. Diddly fucking squat happens and the next thing someone has torched our 4G tower down the roadGo read all the comments as well. There are people in there actually saying they have done stuff or are going to do stuff.Quote from: EEVblog on May 05, 2020, 11:20:24 amWell a few points here. If we look at the content which is being kicked off it's fundamentally dealing with misinformation at a galactic level (InfoWars) and crazy folk with a following (Icke). My father was a somewhat rabid InfoWars follower and it made the last two years of his life fearful and paranoia to the point his psych said he shouldn't even be allowed near the content. He died crying worried about the world as it was promoted not how it is.That's the real impact here and that's why they need to be shut the fuck down hard. Real people are burning years of their lives away on paranoid delusions.As for the slippery slope, I can't disagree with what they have done with those two channels. I understand you are frustrated with the situation and it puts you at personal risk but that is unfortunately the same problem we all face these days when you centralise a resource on one service where moderation is arbitrary (it really is). You're a sharecropper, much as I am on this forum. I risk arbitrary moderation (I think you or Simon nuked one of my comments the other day which was perfectly reasonable of you to do so) and so do you on YT. There are no other providers with as many users or promotional ability as well and we helped build that machine.What can we do? Well unless you decentralise everything then we're all shit out of luck, need to shut up and deal with it or build something better. I can't see that happening.I'm out of ideas. You shut down idiots and that's it job done. If we see legitimate content being shut down we call it out.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 05, 2020, 12:35:36 pm
content: Quote from: bd139 on May 05, 2020, 12:26:54 pmAgain, you want them shut down because you think they "idiots"."Legitimate" content is shut down under the exact same political motivated T&S rules that shuts down the "idiots".The fight should be against the political influence into T&S of aplatform.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2020, 12:54:27 pm
content: No I want them shut down because they are actually harmful and that is very easy to prove. Big difference.Political influence is inevitable with corporate control.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 05, 2020, 01:23:31 pm
content: Quote from: bd139 on May 05, 2020, 12:54:27 pmThe point is should not be when they receive public funds and protection under very specific legal rules because they are aplatform. What they are doing is that of a role of a publisher, and by doing so they are violating the policy of the very specific legal protections they receive as a platform. The issue at stake here is vastly larger and more complex then it seems you are aware of.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2020, 01:38:18 pm
content: I agree but I'm very well aware of what goes on in the eyes of the publicandbehind the scenes. I worked in a very senior position for one of the more incidious companies behind it all for a couple of years who were assisting in the feedback and reporting side of the "platform building" effort. It was entirely politically funded as were the appointed individuals. The idea was to create an untouchable, well funded ecosystem on which content could be shaped and they suceeded pretty well in their objectives. Even at regulatory level staff were swapped with sympathisers which is why there is no current stand against moving platforms to publisher status from a legal perspective. No one wants to touch it with a 6 foot long stick because it's career suicide.But again what can you do other than walk away from the platform? And we're so tied into it from a marketing and revenue generation perspective the only thing we can do is take the hit. So I did. I turned down an offer from Google and took a position for 1/2 the salary for a company with an ethical stance.

author: SerieZ
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2020, 02:01:25 pm
content: So it was you who is to blame for this mess!I am just joking ofcI have some trouble tho understanding this...How you can talk about ethics when you want this guy and others deplatformed (instead of challenged) for wrong-think/say and not even by yourself but by leveraging someone stronger. I find that attitude on itself incredibly unethical.While being Anecdotal I do understand your previous mentioned grief with a Family Member - I had some Family members being angry (Anarcho-? IDK)Communists their whole Life blaming everything on our Family, Government, Capitalism... (of course that person was never the Problem) etc. etc. and while incredibly annoying never in my Life I would have wanted them stripped their rights to talk publicly or using a Platform to express their Ideas to be challenged.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2020, 02:13:45 pm
content: Partially yes. It took a while to work out what was going on because we were comparmentalised. Many regrets thereI like to use an analogy of the soap box individuals in Cambridge city centre in the 1990s as an analogy. Back then you could go and listen, interact with them and heckle them if you wanted. There was mutual respect between the hecklers and the soap box folk. In fact we mostly drank in the same pubs afterwards and had a laugh and some serious discussions as well.But now the platform allows the soap box hecklers to flick away people who challenge them. For example if we take Anthony Steele's channel he spent a long time heavily moderating the comments in response. This feature, implemented to get rid of the odd dickhead, leaves a monocultural echo chamber which is counter to the point of challenging ideas. All opposing discussion is removed. Followers form pockets of subscriptions and bad ideas (demonstrably) tend to amplify leading to all sorts of hell breaking loose.Thus at the end of the day, someone has to take an executive decision on deplatforming eventually but far too late. So ideally yes challenging them is a good idea (you'll find me challenging Anthony Steele's content repetitively until he deletes my comments) and is effective it's no good if the person you are challenging can evict the hecklers silently from the crowd.The same is true of Question Time here in the UK and some of the screen time the BBC have given to balancing crackpottery without moderation. It leads to amplification. Then we have no choice but to deplatform.Just a point on the family members, there was an incident where he actually caused harm to protect someone (my sister) from something irrational. I won't go into that here but stripping their rights is exactly what we do to people when we put them in prison for causing harm.Edit: to add this is still way better than it used to be with moderated press and television being the only communication channels. But it's a long way from ideal yet.

author: SerieZ
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2020, 02:43:37 pm
content: Interesting Argument - however, I do not believe the solution lies in kicking off the Heckler but to not give them the ability to build an Echo-Chamber in the Comment Section.I personally rather have a mess than go down the slippery-slope of (Silicone Valley Corporative) Authoritarianism. Especially as these people could not give less a shit about YOU but their own personal gain.My personal story contact also caused harm and eventually went to Jail for it - does not change that dangerous Ideologies such as communism should be censored rather than challenged.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2020, 03:07:22 pm
content: True. If you removed all the voting buttons from posts and disallowed people from removing comments it'd go a long way to fixing what is wrong. Perhaps that's the compromise somewhere in the middle. Accept the chaos in the order it occurred?

author: thinkfat
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 05, 2020, 03:46:04 pm
content: Quote from: bd139 on May 05, 2020, 03:07:22 pmYou'd still have the dickheads, the social bullies. If you can't get rid of those and can't tolerate them either, the alternative is to remove interaction with the audience from the platform entirely. Boy would that be boring.

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2020, 07:23:17 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 05, 2020, 07:06:33 amI'm with Dave and against the double standards promoted by YT and other platforms such as Twitter. Someone saying something stupid in their video is no grounds for being booted, obviously as long as it does not promote harm. Idiots that create comments promoting violence are completely out of control from the publisher, especially in large channels - whackamole effect applies.Also, how many people were threatened with violence (including Dave, by his own account IIRC) and could do very little to that effect?The public space for discussion of ideas moved to these platforms and the fact they censor people can lead to regulation by FCC or other government agency. If I am not mistaken, there was a bill proposal on the house to set regulations to online platforms, but it didn't yet get traction. Of course YT, etc. don't want that, but are still treading this fine line.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2020, 09:13:51 pm
content: Quote from: rsjsouza on May 05, 2020, 07:23:17 pmPeople promoting conspiracy theories, anti-vax, etc DO promote harm. We've already seen significant resurgence of diseases like Measles and Polio which had been nearly eliminated before. It's important to stamp out these sort of things before they grow into giant self sustaining echo chambers.

author: DimitriP
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2020, 10:07:58 pm
content: Where there is no competition all bets are off.Is there a #2 platfrom after youtube ?

author: Wilksey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2020, 12:03:33 am
content: Honestly, I find that Mark Steele chap a born entertainer, how he can keep that deadpan look when delivering those crackers is beyond me, the comments are comedy gold, better watch out for that 450V capacitor!I highly recommend watching the videos just for a laugh when he tries to "explain" things, his background is apparently being a Geordie nutjob who shoots woman, or as he puts it "weapons expert", you can't argue with that logic!That "5G" 868MHz monopole antenna that points up to the sky is a death ray - or was it a scanning radar - and the LEDs they are clearly lasers and the power supply is designed to melt your face off with it's 3300W! relay. Wowzers!All of this "weaponry" in a street lamp, no wonder the company designing these "weapons" went bust with Inspector Steele on the case!I don't think the content should be removed, I love watching the interviews and the long con game and how many people can get drawn in by the "truth".One of Mr Steele's company Reevu products contains GPSis this fool trying to kill people!

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 06, 2020, 12:59:35 am
content: Thunderf00t just released a video on this and made a good comparison between David Icke and faith healing ministers who claim to be able to cue cancer through pray, most likely killing or harming more people than David Icke's rantings ever would.I bet you a million dollars that Youtube would never remove those minsters, the difference is it's politically expedient to remove the "conspiracy theorists". It's pure political agenda and virtue signaling on behalf of Youtube.

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2020, 01:08:16 am
content: Quote from: james_s on May 05, 2020, 09:13:51 pmThe major problem here is the delegation of power to make the decision as to what is harmful and what is not. I won't bring medical issues to this thread (there are many other threads already) but the silencing of such voices in one place will not suppress them but instead make them boil in secrecy until they erupt. Challenging them in open space is still the best alternative.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 06, 2020, 01:11:25 am
content: Quote from: DimitriP on May 05, 2020, 10:07:58 pmThere is Facebook, although if you are banned from Youtube you will almost certainly be banned form Facebook, Instagram and Twitter as well.Alternatives are Library, Bitchute, Vimeo and Dailymotion, but those last two have almost zero native audience.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 06, 2020, 01:23:18 am
content: Quote from: james_s on May 05, 2020, 09:13:51 pmWhy target just them?Why not ban all the gun channels, vaping smoking and weed channels, religious faith healing channels (heck religion in general, or dare we say the big I word), extreme diet channels, heck any channel promoting bad food, channels promoting and celebrating obesity or depression, and I could on and on and on with dozens of examples of categories that "promote harm" in some way.People are singling out those ones because they find them particularly personally offensive, or because it's current politics, with maybe some virtue signally thrown in.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 06, 2020, 01:25:43 am
content: Quote from: thinkfat on May 05, 2020, 03:46:04 pmYoutube did that with kids content channels, their entire channels were nuked, no comments on any video. What were once thriving communities were instantly switched off.If I upload a video and tick the "made for kids" box, that video instantly has comments removed and is demonetised.I'd hate to be producing kids content now.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2020, 03:49:56 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 06, 2020, 12:59:35 amI place them all in the same bucket and would absolutely boot the whole lot of them if it were up to me.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 06, 2020, 06:19:04 am
content: Quote from: james_s on May 06, 2020, 03:49:56 amBut where does it end? Like that (short) list I posted above. I'd bet that I could find something you were interested in that was potentially "harmful" to others.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2020, 06:23:40 am
content: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2020, 04:57:03 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 06, 2020, 06:19:04 amI'm sure you could.Perhaps drawing the line at things that are objectively true? Or at least prevent the careful curation of comments to prevent the silencing of any dissenting opinions and information? Or YT can just yank whatever YT wants because like this forum it's not a democracy.

author: vodka
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2020, 06:36:27 pm
content: Welcome to the Globalist Electronic Inquisition where if you want to express an idea , you have to loose all day for finding a word not banned.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 07, 2020, 04:22:57 am
content: Quote from: james_s on May 06, 2020, 04:57:03 pmErr, even scientific "truth" changes all the time, that's actually how science works.Youtube are currently saying you can't say anything against the WHO guidelines or your video/channel will be deleted, but the WHO have been proven demonstrably wrong on more than one occasion.That's just related to this threads topic, let alone countless others.And many bat shit crazy "conspiracy theories" things have a kernel of truth to them. Take 5G for example, it's notuntruethat it can cause humans issues, in fact it'sdemonstrably true, this is why safety limits exist. The devil of course is in all the practical detail.QuoteWhat do you mean? Do you mean stop creators from moderating comments on their videos?Technically that would be nice in some circumstances, like for example some batshit crazy crazy covid video could be comment ratioed to death so all anyone sees is "this is bullshit" comments that have 10,000 up votes that rise to the top.On the flip side, the nutters can ratio it to the other extreme.

author: Electro Detective
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2020, 10:51:16 am
content: Don't feel too sorry for Mr. Icke, unlike many of us in Midway 2020, chances are high he's got a lot of money stashed away for MANY rainy days ahead,leaving long time donating fans still waiting to reveal who the upright walking Reptilians actually are amongst us in the real world.. names, addresses, businesses etcorganized groups 'overseeing' most of the major internet watering holes,as well as owning the entire 'www' via air money.If we can believe his shared information, these sad demented souled out scaly creatures still dominate the Earth in the background, ever since the demise of the dinosaurs and MySpace,with secretive networking and most likely controlling current major global events too.Shhh... we're not supposed to know = move along, nothing to read hereOTOH: I reckon Icke has enough stashed away and may be negotiating to buy out Youtube!Then he can claim Diety status again, and no one will dare post any conspiracy theory Youtubes exposing 'Him'On the upside, if he buys a fair share of Youtube, he may restore payouts again,so decent Youtubers won't solely rely on Patreon donationsi.e. don't be too nasty on DI, he or a mate or two may be members here.Trust no one, keep enemies and friends not close but far away,if you're lucky they may do each other in, and leave you in peace

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2020, 10:34:56 am
content: Mr. President says:https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/QuoteA step in the right direction, isn't it?

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2020, 10:39:56 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on May 29, 2020, 10:34:56 amFundamentally, there is the concept of "Freedom of the press".Therefore, a presidential candidate Censoring/Messing-with/putting-pressure-on etc the press, is fundamentally breaking the "Freedom of the press" bit.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_pressThese days, youtube/facebook/twitter etc, probably count as modern day news sources (i.e. the press).

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2020, 03:17:42 pm
content: Well, that's the problem. Youtube/FB/Twitter/etc. are not "press" as they do not (or should not) editorialize their content, but instead are considered "platforms" where they are not responsible for the contents created by their users (free speech).However, some of their targeting, censoring and "fact checking" decisions put them in the spotlight and closer to traditional media, which has a series of regulations.An article that covers the subject in a much better way than I could possibly do here in a few lines:https://www.forbes.com/sites/esade/2020/02/10/should-social-media-platforms-be-regulated/#778dfd063370

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2020, 03:27:06 pm
content: David Icke gets (rightly) jeered for his long standing, unironic commentary that powerful people are actually reptiles.Meanwhile, many of those jeering also celebrate the 1988 film 'They Live", which depicts the powerful as vile aliens from Andromeda, unironically endorsing it as an accurate commentary on the real world. Something here doesn't quite add up.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2020, 03:54:50 pm
content: Quote from: rsjsouza on May 29, 2020, 03:17:42 pmThanks for the explanation/article, I enjoyed reading it. I basically agree with it, they are NOT 'press' as such.But the thing is, times are changing.Let's go back 40 years, for a second. Politicians, would have advertised in actual news print newspapers.Which had rules and regulations, to ensure the smooth running of things.E.g. The politicians (in the West), could not readily create a dictatorship, by controlling the press. Hiding any/all bad stories about their party, and promoting, stories which were complete lies/fabrications, designed to sound believable, to make it look like their party was doing very well and is the best.Roll forward to today. Take twitter as an example. Politician(s) {Leaving names out, to avoid making thread too political}, can use it as a "news paper like", platform. To get their messages around.Therefore, if those politicians, were to use "executive orders", to gagthe presstwitter.In real terms, they would be acting in a somewhat similar way, to defeat the "Freedom of the press's", concept/rules/laws.E.g. Banning twitter from saying anything bad about a particular party/politician, under any circumstances.In other words, it is undesirable for either twitter themselves to censor things (because they are too weakly regulated), or for politicians to censor twitter. Because they could use it to promote their own parties, even if what they say is completely untrue, and very misleading.tl;drThese are probably VERY deep areas of discussion. Potentially, with great importance to the way we live life, hence consequences.To avoid sparking political discussion, I will not specify why. But think about what is going on at the moment, around the world. It is not a good time, for politics and/or social media/youtube etc, to potentially need updates to the way they work.Clearly it is at least partly failing at the moment. With 5G masts being burnt down in some countries, because of social media misinformation, about unsubstantiated dangers of 5G.

author: DimitriP
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2020, 05:42:05 pm
content: The "press" from a practical point of view is "independent" as long as they don't have a contract with the paper company dictating what they can and cannot print.Or the printing press company having a clause in the sale contract or lease on wha they can and cannot print.Or the building owner dictating what they can and what they cannot print.Or the advertizers who are also sensitive to what they do or do not print.Finally we have the "owners" of the organization that may or may not have tight reigns and an opinion on what issues get discussed or not. But since they are too busy they delegate to editors in chief and whoever else to be "responsible" for that.What if keyboards, screens, storage , cat cables, network switches and routers all have had some sort of clause on their intended usage?How about clothes and shoes (you may not wear our clothes/boot/gloves/helmet) while working for a company that is not carbon neutral (as an example).Enter the internet: All of the above conditions can easily be put into one of them "Terms of service" agreements".Press "Accept" to continue.What is needed is independent "platforms".You can't go into a movie theater/ mall/statiup/park and start shouting stuff at people just because you have an audience.You could try starting your own indpendent website, or blog to have an "independent" voice and all you have to worry is the service provider for your internet connection and hosting company....and we are back full circle to the beginning....

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 30, 2020, 01:12:55 am
content: Quote from: MK14 on May 29, 2020, 03:54:50 pmThe problem with Youtube, Facebook, twitter et.al is that they enjoy the legal protections of being a platform, but they often demonstrably act as publishers (and with an obvious extreme left wing modern SJW bias at that).They shouldn't be able to have it both ways, but they get away with it under the disguise of Terms Of Service and their various "harassment" and "offensive" rules.And those who shout "but they are private company, they can do anything they like" don't realise (or don't care) that these companies get government tax breaks and so effectively get public funding.And they are alsoplatformsof national political discourse importance, so important that the US supreme court ruled that they cannot delete Trumps tweets (and other politicians and public figures) for example, and political figures can't block people. Yet they are free to delete the ones from Joe Average.https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/27/18761132/twitter-donald-trump-rules-violation-tweet-hide-remove-political-figures

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2020, 01:06:06 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 30, 2020, 01:12:55 amThis modern communications medium (Youtube/Facebook/Twitter/Internet etc), is a real can of worms. It is mind boggling, the number of ways it causes issues.From political parties, conspiracy stories, Flat Earthers, Dodgy Technology, Solar Roadways, Anti-5G.Sellers creating their own (bogus/glowing) reviews e.g. On Amazon.I guess it is a sort of history repeating itself.Analogy:Go back in the past (Hypothetical only, some/all laws, may have already existed at that time, but let's pretend they didn't). The printing press has just been invented. So, people are creating Books, Posters and stuff. Completely freely.There are no laws/rules/restrictions on what you can publish, or say. Even if it is blatant lies, and 'steals' someone else's ideas (no copyright).So, presumably, sooner or later, legislation will come about, and hopefully control all these problems/issues.In practice, I expect they will bring in legislation. But I expect it will do 2 major things:(1) It WON'T solve the problem that it was designed to solve.(2) It WILL cause many, major problems all on its own, some of which may be considerably worse than the problem it was originally designed to solve in the first place.E.g. GDPRHence recent news:QuoteOf her own grandchildren!https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52758787tl;drNew laws, feature creep, crazy outcomes, as a result.

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2020, 10:58:08 pm
content: Regarding the grandmother news: it says there the mother had asked the grandmother to delete the photos many times, to no avail. If that is really what happened, I can see how this is fair to the mother, regardless of her motives. In my opinion, pictures of children are not public domain and the sole discretion to release them is left to the parents - and yes, there are parents that are idiots but so there are grandparents and relatives, to where you can send pictures in good faith only to see them splattered in the most unexpected places (I sent the pictures of your children in bath suits or taking a bath to ALL my friends).

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 31, 2020, 03:23:55 am
content: Quote from: MK14 on May 30, 2020, 01:06:06 pmTwitter just took down the account of that bogus Anti 5G USB protection stick everyone is talking about.Obviously I'm not going to shed a tear, but once again that open up a can of worms. Yes it's obviously a fake scam product, and when you take people's money with a scam you can say that obviously crosses a line. But then why are faith healers still on there? and astrologers, and psychics, and homeopathy along with countless other scams.And what if they weren't taking people's money? Why shouldn't they be allowed to freely share information, regardless of how bogus it it.The WHO is a classic example. You are taking down videos that go against the WHO guidelines, but just mere months ago the WHO were sharing now demonstrably bogus information themselves, and some of those banned were proven to be right.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2020, 09:31:57 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 31, 2020, 03:23:55 amI very much agree with you!But I'm NOT sure, what the solution(s), are going to be, going forward.Let's assume, that 5G is 100% safe.Nevertheless, it is perfectly reasonable, for there to be discussions, on how safe it is, and how it might be adversely affecting some people. Otherwise, science/engineering, would tend to never make any progress.Real life example:TV aerials, on peoples homes, are considered 100% safe (unless they fall and injure someone, or you fix it, with an unsteady ladder, and fall from a big height, etc).But in practice, you can genuinely make statistical studies, which show considerable dangers from the TV aerials. Especially from e.g. 1970's.But there were later studies, which explained these statistical effects, and it was nothing to do with any real dangers of TV aerials. Such as big increases in the risks of certain skin cancers.E.g. In the 1970's, you tended to be middle class (well off financially), if you could afford a colour TV, at the time.Hence you could afford to (from the UK), fly out to exotic foreign countries, and get lots of high sun (bathing) UV exposure.Hence the real cause of the big increases in the rates of certain skin cancers, were likely to be the correlation between affording expensive colour TVs (in the 1970's, when they were very expensive), and affording luxury holidays abroad (which were also very expensive, relatively, at the time).tl;drSo 5G could indeed be causing certain problems, even if it is truly 100% safe. But there could be other factors, which are the real reason.E.g. People who have/use 5G, don't bother to sleep adequately, because they use the high speed (5G) internet, all night, to enjoy watching/reading stuff. So the lack of sleep, could be the real reason why they are suffering health issues, (indirectly) from the new 5G.So, such studies (dangers from 5G), might be how such issues (lack of sleep), are discovered, in the first place.Which is why freedom of speech is so important.I guess we have a horrible double edged sword situation here. There is an extremely thin line, between scams ($399 anti-5G devices), incorrect science (5G causes health issues) and proper 5G safety studies, which might find other factors (such as lack of sleep, due to too easy fast internet access), are the real causes of the health problems.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2020, 09:42:15 am
content: I think it’s fair to shut people down causing directly attributable harm and leave the rules at that.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2020, 09:52:26 am
content: Quote from: rsjsouza on May 30, 2020, 10:58:08 pmBut there are significant dangers, such far reaching legislation, can end up causing terrible problems, all by itself.E.g. A test case, decides that forum posts, must each confirm (every post, that is), that the poster owns the copyright to that post. So, every post you make, you have to fill in this fiddly pop-up thing, where you have to declare that you own the copyright, and can safely make the post, you also have to click/tick, to say you are over 18 years of age, etc etc.If you think the example is too far, extreme, won't happen. Think again.I forget which website it was. But a particular website (just simple browsing for me), brought up a GDPR related thingy. (Unlike the millions I have to keep on clicking, when I go to various websites, which already annoys me, and it is such a waste of time, 99.99% of the time).It then demands that I fill in this many clickable/tickable boxes, form, before accessing their website. Until I have filled it in, it won't let me access the website. Because of the GDPR.Sooner or later, GDPR, may make entire youtube channels, be taken off air. E.g. because of some content, which they claim authorisation, because someone photographed was under 18 years of age.I think Dave, has already had vaguely similar problems. Something about demonetisation, if the audience is deemed to be under 18 years old (or something).tl;drAlthough on the one hand, children's rights need protecting. It can be the thin-end of a wedge. With entire mediums, such as youtube, being significantly adversely affected, if we are not careful.E.g. One day, all the images, on this (and other) forums, could be indirectly BANNED, with the forum IP blocked. Unless the copyrights of all images are proved to be owned/allowed for use on the forum.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2020, 09:54:01 am
content: Quote from: bd139 on May 31, 2020, 09:42:15 amEDIT: You are right by the way, I agree. But my comment below, is to show what I think would happen in practice. I.e. a law starts out to protect against terrorism, then ends up allowing the Police to enter anyone's house and search it, for any reason they like. I.e. it removes our freedom/rights as individuals.Which is why we still only pay 1 pence tax, per year, on just the single tax law of 1702 (I just made that up, to illustrate a point).tl;drFeature creep, or whatever you want to call it.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2020, 10:01:56 am
content: Quote from: MK14 on May 31, 2020, 09:54:01 amIf it’s the state you’re worried about, ignore the legal system as it doesn’t factor in.If you’re worried about civil legal risk then that’s a good point.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2020, 10:04:40 am
content: Quote from: bd139 on May 31, 2020, 10:01:56 amYou're right, I had already edited my post (at around the same time), as I realised it might cause confusion.What you original said, and the original intent of the new laws, are good, true and niceBut in practice, these things can end up gradually changing, and end up causing all sorts of problems, in the future.EDIT: Analogy in feature creep.I go back in a time machine, in the UK, and made King of Britain.I then announce.There will be this new thing called tax (taxation), and every citizen will pay 1 penny per year, into my King of Britain, fund.Don't worry, no income tax, VAT (sales tax), or other taxes. No annual tax returns, etc.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2020, 10:22:57 am
content: Taxation was a good thing though really. It lead to protection, infrastructure and education. Prior to that it was mostly altruism which provided those services which wasn’t that effective as humans are mostly stingy pricks. Better that than having to fight off highwaymen at McDonald’sGranted it could be a bit simpler.Point is that all decisions made have positive and negative consequences. We like to promote the negative ones though while ignoring the positive outcomes which is what this entire thread seems to devolve into.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2020, 10:36:29 am
content: Quote from: bd139 on May 31, 2020, 10:22:57 amYou're right.If there were zero taxes (including council taxes) in the UK, then there would be no,NHS (free) hospitalsPolice, fire brigade, army or Schools.But GDPR, could allow politicians/EU etc, to slide in 'JUST' another tiny/slight amendment, which won't effect anyone.Which then causes entire internet websites, youtube channels, and other things to end up being shut-down, as an indirect consequence, of that slight amendment.E.g. Over-reaching copyright enforcement (and other, possible new rules). Which could cause many/most forums, and many youtube channels, to have to shut-down, in the future.EDIT: Example:The GDRP has been terribly badly designed, it is awful in practice. I can't SHOUT about it on these forums, but I can TRY TOO!!!!!.A half-computer competent or above person. Would know, that you should have a once and for-all, way of turning off those (horrible to me, and some others), GDPR pop-up messages, often insisting I confirm, about use of cookies.It should have been designed, so that there is an easy way of just opting out (for ALL websites, in one go) of such nonsense. But there doesn't seem to be.I.e. ...Setup-configuration..Webrowser - Signals to all websites, that this user is happy to receive cookies, WITHOUT a horrible pop-up, on every new website.EDIT2:https://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2018/jul/05/what-should-i-do-about-all-the-gdpr-pop-ups-on-websitesWhich { Ironically}Pops up with the following:Quote

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2020, 11:09:53 am
content: Again trade off. 99% of the issues occur when marketing and financial companies utilise your data against your wishes. That’s where real damage comes from. But that is about your own data, not other people’s. So what’s the deal here?Well I suppose people are going to complain when communities are damaged because users demand content is deleted. That’s their right to do so if they wish I suppose. If you want to withdraw from something why shouldn’t you?As for destroying YouTube and communities via legislation I don’t think the GDPR or any extension of that is capable of doing so.The key thing is really revenue control which is an issue and that will Self-destroy the platforms. But that’s what happens when you’re a sharecropper on one platform only. Diversify or die is business 101.Edit: harsh point really I want to add but I was going to run a YT channel for a bit but the economics weren’t viable. It was a short run proposition at best and the risk assessment was poor.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 31, 2020, 11:14:00 am
content: Quote from: MK14 on May 31, 2020, 09:31:57 amOf course, and this is why there are standards and safety bodies covering this sort of stuff and have extended it to 5G, as I have pointed out in my 5G video.It is wrong to stop discussion of this. The best counter to false information is education, not to block it.QuoteI'm happy to draw the line at scams that part people from their money for starters. But they'll never touch religious scams, because it (including all this COVID stuff) ultimately comes down to politics.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 31, 2020, 11:16:56 am
content: Quote from: bd139 on May 31, 2020, 09:42:15 amThat's a decent line, like monetary scams. I think few people would take issue with that, including almost absolute free-speech advocates like myself.Of course many will argue that information like 5G scare tactics cause "harm" because it makes some people to nuts they go out an torch 5G towers.I don't agree with that argument because a person has to take responsibility for their own physical actions like that.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 31, 2020, 11:20:43 am
content: Quote from: MK14 on May 31, 2020, 09:52:26 amThat's not GDPR, it's COPPA, and it's 13yo kids. Everyone who uploads a video to Youtube has to check a box every time that ask if the video "directed at kids". If you select yes then your video is automatically demonetised and comments turned off, no exceptions.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2020, 11:21:27 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 31, 2020, 11:14:00 amI agree with you (and what BD139, said earlier, as regards banning scams).Ban/disallow outright SCAMs.But allow other discussions, because EDUCATION, is a good way of improving all sorts of things, as well as this.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 31, 2020, 11:24:55 am
content: Quote from: bd139 on May 31, 2020, 11:09:53 amBecause you posted it on apublicforum/website, and in the case of this forum, under terms and conditions that stipulate you posted to a public forum and cannot have the information removed just because you changed your mind.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 31, 2020, 11:32:03 am
content: The bottom line with this whole debate is, when is comes to information,there should be no arbiter of truth.If you have an arbiter of truth, then you have taken the path to tyranny.Therefore free speech on all platforms must be upheld.The exception to free speech is calls to violence, which is not opinion or information.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2020, 11:36:03 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 31, 2020, 11:20:43 amIt is quite a complicated subject area. I had never heard of COPPA (I mean I had, but I'd forgotten, especially its name). But I have read about it (e.g. your thread or video about it, or similar, if I'm mixed up, then it would be another electronics related one).But the name COPPA, didn't sink in.From your various past threads/videos, it seems youtube, is rather a complicated minefield, as regards demonetisation and/or videos being taken down (spurious/malicious take down requests, mentioning the word 'Coronavirus', etc etc), and stuff like that.When someone gets a significant amount of their annual money (earnings) from youtube. The fact that a breach, of these sometimes arbitrary (and possibly secretive) rules, could bring a particular video or even the entire channel, off-air. It is a significant worry, to some.Maybe, youtube is too much of a monopoly, and there should be other, major players. But, I'm not really blaming youtube (Google and their parent company) here. It seems to be more, governments/EU to blame, maybe.But in all fairness, many laws, including new ones, are needed, from time to time (as BD139 said, there are good and bad points about them).

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2020, 11:46:10 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 31, 2020, 11:32:03 amYou're right, but it is being hurt.E,g, The Thunderfoot youtube channel.Which is being almost 100% of the time being demonitised and even being "blocked", by youtube.So, it is still up on youtube, but I mean ("blocked"), as in, youtube removed it (silently), from searches and things.Which is crazy. Because his videos, are usually, scientifically orientated, debunking, on current SCAM/fake-news/false-stories/bad-science things.Such as false Coronavirus claims, dodgy medical test companies, false free energy machine claims, incorrect 5G is dangerous stories, flat-earth, etc etc.tl;drThunderfoot's downfall, is a significant failing in 'free speech'

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2020, 12:02:44 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 31, 2020, 11:24:55 amThat's a matter of opinion, not fact unfortunately. You can't kill a statutory law with terms and conditions.

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2020, 12:38:30 pm
content: Quote from: MK14 on May 31, 2020, 09:52:26 amI understand that and agree that over extending legislation is dangerous, but unfortunately the precise measure of enforcement is only found by trial and error - after all, the internet went for quite some time unregulated and only in the past 10 (perhaps 15) years that some sort of enforcement started to be put in place. This will be bound by mistakes because it is so new (espacially with social media) and has no traditional boundaries of legislation.BTW, in a perfect world such brawl between inlaws would never need to reach such drastic level, but in my opinion that is one example where this was used in favour of the "correct" outcome.Quote from: MK14 on May 31, 2020, 11:46:10 amJust to let you in into the modern term: this is called "shadow banning"

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2020, 12:52:22 pm
content: Quote from: rsjsouza on May 31, 2020, 12:38:30 pmI agree. You are right. Laws do take time, to mature and become sensible. I am being somewhat over-critical, of these new laws.Quote from: rsjsouza on May 31, 2020, 12:38:30 pmThanks. That term is new to me (although I'd heard of the concept, and if I read that name, I hadn't remembered it).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banning

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 31, 2020, 01:05:04 pm
content: Quote from: rsjsouza on May 31, 2020, 12:38:30 pmThat's a tricky one actually.Someone like Youtube for example, as a platform, should have no requirement topublicise(or monetise) content if they don't want to.But when they do "shadow ban" content or a channel, that could be argued as being a form of "publishing".

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2020, 05:59:46 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 31, 2020, 01:05:04 pmYes, that is very muddy.To see if a premise works well or not, I usually like to correlate the term "platform" to an actual and physical platform used for public discourse - it always comes to my mind a man speaking on top of a crater box in the middle of a public square.I can't help but wonder if the shadow banning would be something along the lines of someone plastering their pamphlets or banners on top of others' banners to hide a speech scheduled to happen at a given date, for example. The dude in the crater box would be impacted by a lower audience, but is that illegal? It would be borderline illegal if the mayor (which is responsible to manage and maintain the square) is surreptitiously hiring or rallying its own allies to perform the act.Yes, I know it is very imperfect when compared to the electronic medium, but it works for my (crazy) mind.

author: DimitriP
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2020, 09:13:12 pm
content: QuoteClose but here is the fun part: It's not the city public square , instead it's the walmart/tesco parking lot.USENET seems to be the only "free" mechanicsm left that is not subject to anything in particular.Of course it uses an archaic interface, (email) and once you try to use it with a web interface provided by anyone else, you are suddenly subject or limited to which feeds and specific group "they" decided to carry and even potentially which posts within those groups. At that point you are back to square 1.5.And here is the wikipedia link for our post dial-up and/or "AOL is the interent" era readers:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet_newsgroup

author: DrG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2020, 06:04:33 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 31, 2020, 11:32:03 amWhen I first read this, my gut reaction was to counter the statements but I did not want to act reflexively. I acknowledge that there has been some thread drift.After thinking about it for a while, I am responding, with the qualification that I know that I don’t have the answers. So many of us want Free Speech as the ideal and in the USA (and so many other countrieshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country), it is a treasured ideal.In my younger days, I would have agreed with your “tyranny” and your “arbiter of truth” conclusions. I may not even have included the one exception that you included. But, I have changed over time, whether I like to admit it or not.In the US, the arbiters of truth are certainly not the scientists or engineers; they are the judicial branch of government.To illustrate, I looked at the exceptions to freedom of speech in the US:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptionsI pretty much want every one of those exceptions to be in place. I don’t want to see kiddie porn all over the place, crime scene gore all over the place, people stealing other people’s works, violence incitement and threats, and yes, false statements. I don’t even want people to be allowed to scream (as a right), “active shooter” (replacing “fire”) in a crowded area, when there is none.What I am saying is simply that I believe in Freedom of Speech and I also believe in a whole lot of restrictions.What I am also saying is that I believe in a community standard and I do so knowing that, to some degree, those standards are both dynamic and subjective (e.g., poorly defined). We had some good discussion about this earlierhttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/the-future-of-online-discussion-how-do-you-see-it/msg2899818/#msg2899818Who gets to decide on those restrictions? I’m ok with the SCOTUS, as long as I agree and yes, I know what I just typed.But, what happens when we are talking about an international venue rather than a national one? We have not worked all that out yet and it may end up with the national restrictions in place for that place, or multinational restrictions in place through agreement.Like I said, I don’t have the answers, but I am asking different questions now than I used to and, for better or worse, ageing [for me] has a way of turning the philosophical into the practical.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 02, 2020, 11:47:21 pm
content: Quote from: DrG on June 02, 2020, 06:04:33 pmAll of those things are already illegal and covered under existing laws.QuoteYou do realise the extreme impracticality of this, right?

author: DrG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2020, 12:51:30 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 02, 2020, 11:47:21 pmBut, you see, the existing laws, ANY of them, can be found to be unconstitutional and, subsequently, they are stricken - they are no longer laws.This can and does happen when a law has been found to violate Freedom of Speech. Here is a recent onehttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1435_2co3.pdfA law in one of our states prohibited the wearing of political buttons inside a polling place (So much for my Alfred E. Neuman for President button). The SCOTUS found that it violated the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and *poof* no more law.I am no lawyer, but there are lots of times (157 according to somewhere on some wiki something or other that I was reading at least I *think* that was the number) when the SCOTUS decided that the law is unconstitutional and then, it is no longer a law (abortion and school segregation are two big ones that lots of people know about).So, you see, those existing laws are subject to the arbiter of truth, the SCOTUS. They can and have been struck down, including because they violated freedom of speech.As I mentioned, I am talking about in the US and I don't claim to understand much about Australian law, but I see here that there are some similarities, but a lot of differenceshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#AustraliaAs far as false statements and impracticality - well, yeah, it can be, but not always. The SCOTUS is finding their way...from the citation I included in my previous message:"First, false statements of fact that are said with a "sufficiently culpable mental state" can be subject to civil or criminal liability. Second, knowingly making a false statement of fact can almost always be punished. Libel and slander laws fall under this category. Third, negligently false statements of fact may lead to civil liability in some instances. Lastly, some implicit statements of fact—those that have a "false factual connotation"—can also fall under this exception."Yeah, it can make a lot of lawyers rich, but I don't think it is ok to sell table salt saying that it is a cure for cancer and then claim that that what I said is protected free speech. Same goes for saying that somebody murdered their family (and their family is still alive and well) and claim that it is protected free speech. I am glad that we have those restrictions to free speech.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 03, 2020, 03:25:24 am
content: Quote from: DrG on June 03, 2020, 12:51:30 amPoor attempt at deflection.Youmentioned child porn, copyright, and incitement to violence. All covered under existing laws and processes.I'm done on this topic.

author: DrG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2020, 04:42:45 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 03, 2020, 03:25:24 amI am not deflecting and I have no reason to deflect. You don't seem willing to understand that laws in the US can and are sometimes found to be unconstitutional, despite me repeating that several times and with citations and examples.Laws that exist in the US right now can, tomorrow, be determined to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS and they are then automatically removed from existence.No whining, no complaining, no appealing, no nothing - that's the way it has always worked in the US. The Judicial branch is the branch that interprets the laws (that's why I used your term as "arbiter of truth") and if they rule, in the highest court (SCOTUS), that ANY law violates the Constitution, it is stricken from existence. The Judicial branch does not pass laws, they interpret them.SCOTUS hasalready ruled thatthat there areexceptionsto free speech. Do you understand that? It is not a question of what you or I think regarding whether there should be restrictions to freedom of speech in the US.The reason that they ruled on exceptions is because people challenged some laws as being in violation of their constitutionally guaranteed Freedom of Speech. Since they have ruled that there are exceptions to that freedom, you can't now claim that those particular laws, included or that follow from the exceptions, are violating your freedom of speech.THAT process is why those other laws, the ones that you say that we already have and, therefore, don't need restrictions to freedom of speech, are still laws. That is why we have slander and libel laws - because you can't say or write anything that you want and claim that you are are simply exercising your constitutionally protected free speech. It is NOT simply because we have the slander and libel laws on the books, it is because the "arbiter of truth" has decided that there are restrictions to free speech and that those slander and libel laws are constitutional. If there were none of those restrictions to free speech then libel and slander laws would not be constitutional - how can you not see that?Your contention that restrictions to freedom of speech, as decided by the arbiter of truth isthe road to tyrannyis great drama, but completely irrelevant. You can be sure of this much - those restrictions to freedom of speech in the US exist, whether you think they are needed or not.Your irrationally stubborn insistence that since we already have a law on the books, we don't need a restriction to free speecheven as I showed you a law that was on the books and was recently struck down as being in violation of freedom of speech and therefore unconstitutional.is mind numbing. You simply don't want to get it and I think that is the reason that you are done with the topic and that is a little disappointing.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 03, 2020, 07:13:32 am
content: Quote from: DrG on June 03, 2020, 04:42:45 amI have never said there should be absolute free speech without some restriction, do not misrepresent me.I'm done, I won't debate it further.

author: DrG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2020, 02:07:47 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 03, 2020, 07:13:32 amYou have stated that “The exception to free speech is calls to violence”. That statement appears in your quote that I included in my op in the thread. Later, when I mentioned a number of crimes, including violence incitements, you said that “All of those things are already illegal and covered under existing laws”. I can stipulate that you believe in the single exception to free speech of calls to violence. You have not mentioned any other exceptions, at least not in our discussion.To the point, you clearly used the “we already have laws for that” against what I said…“All of those things are already illegal and covered under existing laws”“You mentioned child porn, copyright, and incitement to violence. All covered under existing laws and processes”…and you did so in the context of exceptions to free speech. That is the point that I have been addressing.To illustrate, if you have a constitutionally guaranteed freedom (freedom of speech) and you have, for example, a libel law, which one supersedes the other? If I have freedom of speech without exceptions (or with only a call to violence exception), then I can say whatever I want about someone else, no matter how false, defamatory or damaging (so long as it is not a call to violence, for example).The libel law would be decided (by the arbiters of truth) to be unconstitutional because, in the US, the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech “wins” because it is part of the constitution of the country which “overrides” any law that is found to not adhere to the Constitution.But, we do have libel laws and the reason that they exist is because the arbiters of truth have ruled that there are exceptions to freedom of speech (libel being one of many such exceptions).In my view, you have it completely backwards. The reason that you can say “All of those things are already illegal and covered under existing laws” and “You mentioned child porn, copyright, and incitement to violence. All covered under existing laws and processes”, Is BECAUSE we have many exceptions to freedom of speech.It is not the case that we don’t need to have  exceptions to freedom of speech since we have those laws. It is that we have those laws because we have many exceptions to freedom of speech. Again, as decided by the arbiters of truth – the SCOTUS who has interpreted constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech as having many exceptions.It is not a trivial point, it is an important point. I understand that it is your site and I believe that you are an excellent EE and you make great videos and you clearly have significant skills as an educator. In this instance, however, you have it completely wrong.

author: SerieZ
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2020, 07:43:34 am
content: Where I believe you are going wrong with your thoughts is that SCOTUS isnotan arbiter ofTRUTHbut an Interpreter of Law in regards of the Constitution as you yourself said and as it should be.Laws and the Constitution is not an arbiter of Truth either, it is a ruleset. The only arbiters of truth in this system I can think of would be the Jury (which are people unrelated to government), not even the Judge is one.(Careful: I am following from what I have read in this Thread and have little understanding of US Law)These restrictions to Freedom of Speech mentioned are probably unconstitutional if you would follow the the whole Philosophy through and through.We don't because some things are deemed so Immoral by our Society we ban them regardless. Remember: It is still people running this system and not machines - I would say for the better because those evils exist.

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2020, 11:32:12 am
content: Quote from: SerieZ on June 04, 2020, 07:43:34 amThe "Philosophy" would be libertarianism and utilitarianism, which were never fully employed due to their potentially abhorrent consequences.

author: SerieZ
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2020, 11:54:31 am
content: Quote from: rsjsouza on June 04, 2020, 11:32:12 amIf asked I would call that whole thing some sort Idealism in absence of Authority and I know most types of Anarchists share this Ideas.The sort of Idealism from Authority however has been tried out and History tells us a very clear story what this means for the Individual.I do not understand why you put Philosophy in quotation marks however, did I use the Word wrong?