The internet is increasingly getting censored. Boldened by the recent deplatforming of Alex Jones and Donald Trump as well as censorship of news that doesn’t fit their narratives has created a slippery slope.
It’s time to take a hardline stance against censorship. If we don’t do it now, future generations will never forgive us.
Sure they will — they’ll think of us like we do people a few thousand years ago who burned libraries and butchered scholars to enforce orthodoxy from the new empire.
It’s surprisingly hard to destroy all traces, and that was before mass media.
To me, the only hardline stance we can take against censorship is to keep (or return to) the internet decentralized as much as possible. Whenever Facebook or Amazon or Twitter or Youtube start censoring, somebody (who inevitably agrees with this specific instance of censorship) will insist "they're a private company, they can do whatever they want!" And this is absolutely, completely, totally correct and appropriate. What the rest of us have to do is to make sure that another private company can compete with them. The problem is, all of the ISPs that make up the internet backbone are also private companies that can do whatever they want. As soon as they agree to collude to stop routing traffic from, say Parler, the way AWS did when it threatened Twitter - as is their legal right as private organizations - the internet has effectively become a monopoly.
Fortunately, the internet protocols themselves are open, at least until Google takes full control of the internet and classifies the IETF publications.
Given that there's a long history of media manipulation in this country (e.g. Hearst, Yellow Journalism, etc), what would you determine qualifies as censorship? Personally I have no issue with blocking people who clearly are abusing their platforms for personal gain.
Certain names and phrases have become people's MK-Ultra trigger words. If you want to know what the system is protecting itself against, just watch how people react when confronted with the blacklisted words.
I would flag this submission for misinformation, but then those ideologically aligned with the tweet would claim even more "censorship" and double down on their incorrectness. This is why dealing with wrong information, lies, and misinformation on the 'net is such a tough nut to crack.
I suspect upvoters did not attempt to reproduce, which is why everyone saying this is a thing is using a secondary source instead of posting their own screenshots.
The cause is worthwhile but this is just a self promoter who knows that certain sections of the internet are gullible retransmitters for certain memes. Flagging the submission.
Visibility is in general controlled by the uploader, so without evidence that the website was preventing her from changing it, it seems much more likely that she just hit the wrong button and blamed it on Youtube before realizing her mistake.
People often say Odysee is a good alternative but it was acquired by Google so it has the same issue as Youtube. Then there is Rumble but it's a much poorer experience and somewhat of an echo chamber but that seems to be changing as a more diverse group of non-political creators move over there.
> People often say Odysee is a good alternative but it was acquired by Google so it has the same issue as Youtube.
IIRC, Odysee is a somewhat curated interface to some kind of blockchain that can't be censored. So I'm guessing that even if a video is taken down from it, it may still actually be accessible at the lower layer.
IMHO, some kind of active moderation is absolutely required for video/images, given the very real possibility for immoral and illegal content that I absolutely do not want to stumble upon. So Odysee strikes me as about the most permissive tradeoff that can be tolerated.
I don't know if it's been debunked, but I like the analogy of the Hygiene hypothesis and increased allergies. If you disinfect and sterilize everything you don't train your immune system and are at risk for allergies, but if you don't disinfect and sterilize you get infections, so you need to find a balance.
Same thing here, I think we're heading into the over-sterilization area of the curve, and maybe we should think about what the "food allergy" analogue is for people who grow up never seeing a single controversial idea expressed ever because all their media is sterilized.
Many people want to live in communes or echo chambers. The problem occurs when they force and apply that to others in society, academia and the Internet. The elites will just use them as the ruse to stifle discussion and free thought.
-
I support even grifters to have a platform for their voice.
One's grifter maybe another's leader.
I dont run a YT channel, but "Restrictions: ad suitability," suggests that the video is still available (e.g., via URL), but Google is not recommending it because advertisers don't want to be associated with it because of the corpse in the thumbnail (term?).
Unlisted means (I believe) that a video won't show up in search or in a feed or on the creators page. You can only watch the video if you have a direct link.
Hakim did a very good short introduction [0] on defectors in general and how this term is used in our media. In the video, he also briefly brings up Yeonmi Pak's story and how it's changed over time as well as the conflicts of interest of speaking income. The video is more about defectors in general and how defectors are portrayed and presented to us, so he doesn't spend a lot of time on Yeonmi Pak's story.
Who is this Hakim, why is he credible, and why should I listen to him?
A brief Googling gives me the impression he's a patreon-funded social media personality with a rather far-out ideology ("Just your friendly neighborhood Marxist"), and frankly that doesn't inspire confidence. IMHO, people like that are usually "stopped-clocks" at best (as in the expression about being occasionally correct but too unreliable to be trusted).
Self-proclaimed Marxist Hakim denounces escapee from Marxist-inspired hellhole. OK, that is like an imam denouncing an apostate for his apostasy in that it would be more surprising if he did not denounce that person.
Some source criticism goes a long way to make Hakim an unreliable source for statements on Yeonmi Park. She will have enough problems getting used to the idiosyncrasies of the current self-hating western society without more attacks from those who follow the ideology she escaped from.
The video is "unlisted", meaning it can be accessed by URL. When you upload a video, you can choose to make it Private (only you can watch it), Unlisted (anyone can watch it if they have the link), or Public (anyone can find it even if you don't have the link). Not sure this qualifies as "censorship" by any definition.
I have a bunch of unlisted videos myself, e.g. "audition tapes" when applying for an acting role. I want the people who I send it to to be able to watch it, but I don't want it to be findable. Nothing nefarious about this.
sortof off topic but this woman strikes me as a mouthpiece for rightwing talking points. Not saying its all a lie but some stuff does strike me as embellished
44 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 100 ms ] threadIt’s time to take a hardline stance against censorship. If we don’t do it now, future generations will never forgive us.
It’s surprisingly hard to destroy all traces, and that was before mass media.
https://www.scribd.com/document/543857539/CUMULATIVE-ANALYSI...
What is the claim here
Fortunately, the internet protocols themselves are open, at least until Google takes full control of the internet and classifies the IETF publications.
https://youtu.be/R2EiuAVKFB0
I found the video by searching on YouTube
https://m.youtube.com/results?sp=mAEA&search_query=yeonmi+pa...
Why exactly is this being upvoted?
Give me a break.
The video is essentially hellbanned.
[edit] It’s listed now if I click back to Park’s account page. Glitch or anti-Streisand maneuver? Impossible to tell.
https://m.youtube.com/results?sp=mAEA&search_query=yeonmi+pa...
It’s literally the first thing. I guess this is what censorship looks like, lol.
Cannot reproduce.
I suspect upvoters did not attempt to reproduce, which is why everyone saying this is a thing is using a secondary source instead of posting their own screenshots.
The cause is worthwhile but this is just a self promoter who knows that certain sections of the internet are gullible retransmitters for certain memes. Flagging the submission.
Voting with my wallet.
IIRC, Odysee is a somewhat curated interface to some kind of blockchain that can't be censored. So I'm guessing that even if a video is taken down from it, it may still actually be accessible at the lower layer.
IMHO, some kind of active moderation is absolutely required for video/images, given the very real possibility for immoral and illegal content that I absolutely do not want to stumble upon. So Odysee strikes me as about the most permissive tradeoff that can be tolerated.
Same thing here, I think we're heading into the over-sterilization area of the curve, and maybe we should think about what the "food allergy" analogue is for people who grow up never seeing a single controversial idea expressed ever because all their media is sterilized.
-
I support even grifters to have a platform for their voice. One's grifter maybe another's leader.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBwZjBMbsK0
Who is this Hakim, why is he credible, and why should I listen to him?
A brief Googling gives me the impression he's a patreon-funded social media personality with a rather far-out ideology ("Just your friendly neighborhood Marxist"), and frankly that doesn't inspire confidence. IMHO, people like that are usually "stopped-clocks" at best (as in the expression about being occasionally correct but too unreliable to be trusted).
Some source criticism goes a long way to make Hakim an unreliable source for statements on Yeonmi Park. She will have enough problems getting used to the idiosyncrasies of the current self-hating western society without more attacks from those who follow the ideology she escaped from.
I have a bunch of unlisted videos myself, e.g. "audition tapes" when applying for an acting role. I want the people who I send it to to be able to watch it, but I don't want it to be findable. Nothing nefarious about this.
Why is this riling up HN?
However, it was tweeted was two days ago.
It's unclear whether it's a bug on Youtube side or real censorship actually happened or user error.
At this stage this is not a valid censorship case against Youtube.
I would remove the post if I could.