My youtube post deleted

  • Thread starter Thread starter otrrl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TheOldColonel said:
Perhaps the source of your frustration is that you, like most of us, expect moderators on any given website to be fair. Yet, certain sites are moderated by individuals who have personal agendas and become quite militant about enforcing them.

The TOS on such sites are often unfairly and unjustly enforced by such moderators so that the personal biases of the moderators become reflected in the overall content of the sites. This is exacerbated by the fact that moderators are usually accountable to no one and have complete power to delete comments and ban users.

If a community flag system is in place, then the problem is exacerbated. The more moderators encourage particular biases, the more quick the community will become to flag comments not in keeping with those biases even if those comments do not truly violate the TOS. The flag system, far from its intended use, is abused and merely becomes a means of unleashing the vengeance of unfair moderators upon those who express ideas contrary to the collective, modetator approved agenda.

It’s really a viscous cycle and truly undermines any site’s claim that its TOS fosters fairness and civility. For there is never anything fair or civil about censorship carried out by militant moderators. And so, such sites rightly gain a reputation for unfairness on the net.
Click to expand...
Well said. I think you have pretty much summed up what is going on here. I really miss the old CAF.
 
Last edited:
"There are many ways of responding to mockery of Christianity. Humility is the key and allowing God to shine through.

If this person blocked you, he didn’t want to hear any opinion contrary to his. Sometimes there is another way of attacking it, other times, there isn’t, because they are just not interested. It becomes a big was just a waste of time."

I don’t have much time left in this life and responding to this atheist seemed the right thing to do, and it was so easy. SOMEBODY read what I wrote, so at least I affected one person. The saying goes that Jesus would have come to earth even to save one person. God put ME here to serve Him. “Love thy enemy.”

Who am I to judge the good that might have been done by responding to that atheist’s hate filled speech?
 
Last edited:
TheOldColonel said:
Perhaps the source of your frustration is that you, like most of us, expect moderators on any given website to be fair. Yet, certain sites are moderated by individuals who have personal agendas and become quite militant about enforcing them.
Click to expand...
In this particular case, YouTube channels tend to be moderated by the channel owner. Sometimes that channel owner will get a team of volunteers or employees to help them. The admins of YouTube don’t seem to get involved a whole lot except when it comes to dealing with illegal content or reviewing an appeal to a video the AI flagged.
BornInMarch said:
It’s more an example of Facebook’s algorithm overall. It’s designed to make users feel good, and part of that design involves shutting users out from viewpoints they dislike. It has the effect of creating echo chambers where people only hear voices they agree with.
Click to expand...
In this case, Facebook and YouTube (under Google) are two completely separate companies. And while both have some very worrying aspects to their algorithms that recommend content, this is not one of them. The channel owner just didn’t want the that comment under their video.
 
otrrl said:
The saying goes that Jesus would have come to earth even to save one person.
Click to expand...
Jesus also said not to let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, and yet you’re here boasting about the saving power of your YT comments.
 
Good for you, OP!

Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
 
There is a protective yet closeted under current which manifest itself at times and will probably flag this post…
 
Roseeurekacross said:
and if an atheist is posting a video of his interpretation of the Bible, thats absolutely wonderful, that atheist is thinking, About God. The Holy Spirit is starting to move in that atheist.
Click to expand...
So true.

My teenage sons, not atheist but probably heretical, love to argue with me about religion. Give thanks and praise to God! Yes, they have some things wrong, but we have reason to hope that they will grow in faith and wisdom as time goes by.
 
Last edited:
ontheway1 said:
Yes. Freedom of expression. Freedom of speech.
Click to expand...
That really only extends to governments. People and organizations are allowed to moderate what happens in their “space”. For instance, we aren’t going to permit someone to just yell out obscenities during the Eucharist. They’ll probably be removed.
 
Freedom of speech reserved for government only? Having lived under communist dictatorship, I fully understand the ramifications of this position, and I can’t believe that anyone would still consider this to be desirable.

I believe that freedom of speech is still guaranteed by the US Constitution and extends to everyone.

Moderating speech means censorship.
 
Trying to have an intelligent discussion on YouTube is like “throwing peas against a brick wall” as my grandfather would put it. The keyboard isn’t nearly as effective in evangelization as verbal dialogue. Don’t be boastful, but hope and pray that your words did strike some people to re-evaluate their lives.
 
You don’t understand the first amendment. The 1A restricts the government. Basically, it means the government can’t punish you for your views, even if they’re unpopular. In this case, YouTube is not the government. They can delete your comments all they want, just like Catholic Answers could delete the posts of someone who came here and started posting pornographic images.

It does NOT mean that private individuals can’t make your leave their private space. If I went into a crowded restaurant and started screaming obscenities, the restaurant owner would be perfectly within his or her rights to tell me to leave, and if I refused, to have the police force me to leave. The restaurant is a private business; they can decide to kick me out and the 1A never enters the analysis.
 
Last edited:
ontheway1 said:
Freedom of speech reserved for government only?
Click to expand...
I meant that only the government is required to let people say what they want. Even then, there are still certain cases that don’t fall under First Amendment rights.
ontheway1 said:
I believe that freedom of speech is still guaranteed by the US Constitution and extends to everyone.
Click to expand...
The First Amendment only guarantees that the government will not seek to limit people’s freedom of speech. Private entities are still capable of doing so so long as the person is on their property.
 
Last edited:
Debate about the status of social media is under way. Censorship is censorship and as social media platforms have all but supplanted traditional media, the question of censorship is growing in importance.
To the best of my knowledge no one is deleting Trump’s twitter messages, unpopular as they may be to some.
Views and expressions such as those of Trump coming from me would certainly be deleted, muted censored by Twitter and, to be sure, by Catholic Answers.

The question of who is making the decision to delete, and what types of messages are being deleted is of fundamental importance here.
 
ontheway1 said:
To the best of my knowledge no one is deleting Trump’s twitter messages, unpopular as they may be to some.
Click to expand...
They’re not, but they could if they chose to. Trump doesn’t have a right to use someone else’s privately owned platform. If Twitter banned him tomorrow, there’s not much he could say about it.
 
This is a side issue. They make too much money on Trump’s tweets to delete him. But, since Twitter has now become a public forum for discussion, (even though it is privately held) but can still be censored by private entities, should be of grave concern to all.
 
That’s a legal argument some people have made, but as the law stands right now: private platform, first amendment doesn’t apply.
 
ontheway1 said:
The question of who is making the decision to delete
Click to expand...
The person who owns and operates the channel, as is their right. YouTube provides a platform for content creators to upload videos, but the actual videos are the property of the creator. Think of it like someone trying to argue with you through the front door of your house: they have a right to free speech, but they cannot force you to listen to them on your own ground.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top