Can someone help me to understand, is youtube censoring discussion of females in comments?

Ohh i see this post has continued with some unswered attacks while i was gone. I guess i better explain some things then.

Yup, youtube still censoring opinions on chosen topics with no care given, i have encountered this many times since i decided to start speaking out against modern-feminist agendas and the consequences to society, cancel culture, and other topics that are rotting todays society with people too afraid to speak out without getting witch-hunted. "Censorship in the name of freedom".

"

Morkonan wrote:

This is a very dangerous point of view if one values concepts like "Freedom of Speech."

"

Morkonan wrote:

Mixing such a strong concept of government control into the mix of one's social life is... again, dangerous.

I think there are many basic things you are completely overlooking here.

You seem to assume goverment intervention in anything personal will lead to inherent danger, in ways true of all laws - but ask yourself what a society without any laws would look like. So, your assumption that goverment intervention is an unwise idea in the first place is directly false.

To really understand why it does not relate to what i said - i think i need to explain what i meant more clearly.

Right now - youtube can do whatever it wants. It can silence a person for any reason - but that can have real economic and social consequence because of the central and irreplaceable function of modern life these social platforms contribute.

Now i have never suggested that it should be the goverment who should censor anything, who should decide what voices should be heard - in fact i would be against the idea that the goverment should be able to initiate any ban at all. What i have said - is that because of the importance of the platforms to modern life - the freedom of the social media's should be reduced to answer to law. You should not be allowed to ban anyone you want at will, maybe relevant after a certain threshhold of unique users - because access to these social playforms is too integral to modern life.

Specifically, i suggested that it should be possible to appeal bans to the court. The court would then judge whether the social media was in its right to ban you due to your behaviour. It might even be considered if permanent banning of your identity should not be allowed at all. It's strictly law against abuse of power, protecting citizens. It's completely in line with law to protect the rights of individuals that is already existent in many other areas of life, where you are not free to cause harm to others without answering to the law.

The discussion becomes relevant because let me repeat myself - the social media how grown so large that they go beyond what can be merely considered a private service function - they are too integral to modern life. That is exactly why i think you misunderstand in the first qoute - i'm really saying that i believe in time it will be recognized that social media platforms should be responsible in their actions. I believe that idea will spread among people that it's not okay to ban whoever they want but really need to uphold their decision to what is right and wrong. Well, in fact if you look around that is already the case we tend to bring attention to anyone suppresive nowadays. But it is still only subject to opinion and i really hope one day it will be possible to appeal bans to a court - even though i have never been banned on anything myself.

At this point i continued to read your post, which turned into a whole lot of lecturing about reflection and then a descend into humanism and "it's just like your opinion man". All i can say is, if you reflected a lot like you profess to teach others - then you might realize different.

"

Morkonan wrote:

It's fine to discuss such things, but to paint oneself as the final arbiter of truth, the only non-fool in existence, the only one possibly capable of understanding the confused, personal, world around them... Just no.

Again, you assume too much and become stuck in your subjective feelings.

Maybe you feel stricken by the talk of fools, maybe not. But the fact is that there are a LOT of fools out there, a lot of the people mindlessly pushing agendas far beyond a point where it is healthy for society, with a huge lack of logic and self-criticism. But there are many people much smarter than me, just you saying this reveals a lot about your emotional approach.

At the end of the day, you had a very large post which was nearly entirely preaching and addressing my person. You touched on the topic very little, with the limited counter arguments summing up to - "well that's just like your opinion man", and generic statements like "the state is the enemy".

You did in the start have one on topic section loaded with generic strawmen so i'll return to that.

"

Morkonan wrote:

Freedom isn't "free." You have to constantly support and strengthen such principles. Idleness will not result in "personal liberty" magically evolving throughout the world's cultures.

That's exactly why you have to change the law, when the society changes. You cannot just stop legislating when reality leads into a new areas that lack any regulations.

"

Morkonan wrote:

To that effect, the idea of Freedom of Speech as it applies to all of us has to also include "Freedom from speech." We can't force anyone to accept any Speech purely based upon the fact it was given "freely." Strengthening an individual's right to choose what they will listen to as well as what they can say, themselves, is an inseparable component of the concept of "Freedom of Speech."

This is quite a lot of nonsense. I understand what you are trying to say - that freedom of speech doesn't mean you can can force others to listen. No one ever said that, other than in your assumption. You don't want to listen? Stop reading, or put a user on block if the you can't handle that user. It's not relevant to the topic, this deals specifically with social medias silencing people because they disagree with their opinions - aka hindering freedom of speech.

I am a big advocate that two opinions are rarely equal, meaning, that i do not in any way think that just because someone is free to speak neccessarily mean they should be taken seriously. I am quite fed up with the fear today people have of saying an opinion is wrong - you can't have any real discussion when people are so sensitive.

Look finally closing - if i take all your personal addressing out of the question, i will sum up what i believe you misunderstand and base everything on is this:

"concept of government control"

This is not a concept of goverment control in the way you present it, it's a concept of "govermental regulation of social media power to control"- it doesn't give the goverment access to control things - it gives them only access to say "no" when social medias want to ban someone. You think this is about the goverment controlling narratives. It is not, it is about limiting what social media can control - it's actually a rollback of power of social media over individuals. So it gives goverment only control over who cannot be banned. Actually it limits the power of social media, when social media starts to act like your feared corrupt goverment silencing people they don't agree with. So you misunderstand the entire concept, it's implementation and the result.

In that sense it's exactly like talking to the mindless herd of people. You hear the word law relating to freedoms and instantly go to the assumptions about goverment controlling people. There are so many laws whos sole purpose is to protect freedoms of the people. I may be lucky that it's easy to see because of where i come from in the world where we have faith in goverment, but you cannot talk to someone who's unwilling to see what is logic because of their presumptions.

Look, let's take the worst case scenario. Goverment tries to abuse this law. So they put someone on social media to influence people. Social media tries to ban them, but goverment has power to keep them there. Now goverment has a speaker voice - a speaking voice which everyone can counter publicly. The case feared with the "goverment control" - is the case where the goverment can silence voices it does not like, and control what people know. This is just not the case here, this is a case of allowing appeals against misuses of power by social media.

All of this said, as i have indicated earlier. I am not even sure it would be practically possible, well it would but not sure anyone would care enough, and completely open to that being reality. Also very open to consequences i have not foreseen. But what people are saying here is not very relavant to it, and that is how nearly everyone act in discussions sadly, not very often do they listen to who they talk to and make what they say relevant to the actual points being made.

"

Morkonan wrote:

To that effect, the idea of Freedom of Speech as it applies to all of us has to also include "Freedom from speech." We can't force anyone to accept any Speech purely based upon the fact it was given "freely." Strengthening an individual's right to choose what they will listen to as well as what they can say, themselves, is an inseparable component of the concept of "Freedom of Speech."

I'm with the other guy on this part - this is nonsense. You've already admitted to not being too familiar with social media, which explains why you seem to imagine people are 'forced' to listen to anyone on it. There are already plenty of tools for them to voluntarily opt out of hearing from anyone they don't like. Indeed, one of the bigger problems with social media these days isn't so much people being 'forced' to listen to people they don't like, but rather the opposite - that they only ever hear perspectives they do like aka 'echo chambers'. But that's another issue - the point is there's no dearth of ways to protect yourself from hearing things you find disagreeable. Rather what online censorship revolves around is removing things you find disagreeable - so NO ONE hears it. It's not about people protecting themselves, but rather gallivanting as protectors of society at large i.e. suppressing 'dangerous ideas'. They aren't simply trying to prevent those things from reaching them, they're trying to prevent those things from finding their way to ANYONE.

Anyway, screw this whole FALSE DICHOTOMY of us having to choose between private fiefdoms or state overreach. Online moderation has more options than that. For instance, COMMUNITY MODERATION. Online fora right now are personal fiefdoms of their owners, to do with as they like. That doesn't have to be the case, and nor does the govt. need to dictate their every rule as an alternative. Simply designate them as 'public spaces' beyond a certain size, and require their communities to have significant say over the rules and its enforcers if so. Then no more arbitrariness - no state suppression, and no private overlordship. The users of each of the platforms will shape the platforms as per their will. If the platforms are truly diverse, this will result in minimalist rules in order to get enough support from everyone for them. If they're not, it might be skewed and result in the platform becoming partisan and hence smaller (sorta like how subreddits are specialized). The people or algorithms empowered to police these fora would also have to enjoy sufficient community support in order to retain their places, else they get the boot i.e. no more corporations or govts. putting in place their own people to shape it as per their whim. Let the actual users of a platform mold it.