Our Content Removal Transparency Report for January to June 2021
blog.google
blog.google
At least in this year, at least in the US, content being removed for being "disinformation" or having the wrong politics is a bigger problem than government censorship. Where is the report for those takedowns?
https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/29/21307303/youtube-bans-mol...
On the flip side, I see AmRen acknowledging the ban on their site, but not suggesting the ban was unfounded; only that it stifles speech (indeed, but stifling hate speech is the point of banning it in YouTube's TOS). Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't appear that even the aggrieved party contests the nature of their content.
Google broadly and secretly [1] defining hate speech, and removing based on that definition, is exactly the example you asked for: content removed for having the wrong politics. That they won't even tell you the exact politics, but leave you guessing, makes it worse, not better. What might be an entirely factual, dispassionate video, becomes in your mind a foaming-at-the-mouth murderous screed, because all you know about it is that Google (known for being straightforward and trustworthy) called it hate speech.
[1] We never get to find out what their interpretation of their stated rules is in practice, only who is guilty of breaking them, and only in the few cases that are high-profile enough for us to learn about.
> We also believe that whites, like all racial groups, have legitimate interests that must be defended. The defense of those interests is white advocacy. We seek to advance only those interests that we recognize and would defend for all other racial groups. We seek no advantages as whites — only the expression of preferences for our own people and culture that are taken for granted by people of other races but denied to us.
Now this paragraph may be a lie, and the SPLC may be correct that they are hateful supremacists. But they're not self-described as such. Again, I welcome evidence supporting this, but I don't feel inclined to go through their website to find it.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/grou...
I suppose if you want to nit pick, they don't self-identify as white supremecist, but openly promote the idea that whites are superior and deserve to dominate society.
From what I could gather, the idea they're promoting is for whites to have a separate society, and not dominate anyone. But since they're so open about promoting, as you say, whites dominating others, you should have no trouble finding an example proving me wrong.
I know I'm not going to convince you - but for others who aren't radicalized, I'll spell it out - the idea of a white ethnostate is a hateful, racist one. Promoting that idea means you're hateful and racist. Do not read American Renaissance.
Amren posts articles like this: https://www.amren.com/news/2008/08/race_and_psycho/ that the core argument is that we should kick blacks and Hispanics out of society because they're stupider than white people. Supporting this makes you a bad person. This is not just "political differences" - this is doesn't belong on any platform.
Surely you mean any ethnostate is hateful and racist, not just a white one? Such as the hateful, racist states of Algeria, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, Finland, Sierra Leone, Lithuania, and Turkey? All nearly homogeneous at the granularity where 'white' is a single group.
Have you ever considered that movies and media might be deceiving you?
From a philosophical perspective, though, I'm a liberal -- if someone's videos are "unhealthy" but inside the bounds of the law, I think it's usually good for society for platforms to host them (though the companies shouldn't have a legal obligation to host them, and certainly need not promote them.) Grown-ups are grown-ups.
But maybe you're talking about actually criminal radicalization, like telling people to kill others? Not just asking difficult questions about the shape of the Earth?
1: https://vimeo.com/636460268. You may also be interested in the section after the one on "YouTube radicalization", on the Facebook whistleblower, around 10:30.
Wow. What's the logic behind those laws?