Just type Alex Jones into YouTube and see for yourself.

"leaked" exclusively to Breitbart, the controlled opp. social division network.

"...the fact that, according to leading psychologists, the impact of foreign “bots” and propaganda"... - GTFO with "bots". We're not there yet.

Looks like another planted "leak" to act as a shoe horn for false debate, and a preconditioning to accept bold censorship.

Just read the article. It does make a few factual statements such as Google developing a censored version of their engine for authoritarian China and YouTube’s push for “authoritative sources”. But I don’t lie if one can truly say that it is a real exclusively leaked briefing. Why only Breitbart? Why not a bigger news outlet like Fox?

I’m leaning towards the possibility that it is true based on the recent years of proven censorship and leftist attacks on anyone not far left. Additionally, if I remember correctly, Breitbart was recently banned as a source for Wikipedia. You might think this should support the notion that Breitbart is simply a right-wing biased news outlet that can’t be trusted, but then you’d have to recall the erasing of Alex Jones.

Say what you will about Alex Jones, but he is proof of the tech giants and other major corporations colluding together to censor people and ideas they don’t agree with.

Why only Breitbart? Why not a bigger news outlet like Fox?

Remember that every major news outlet had the Trump Dossier for months before it became public. But it was Buzzfeed that eventually leaked it.

because they were trying to authenticate it

I know. I'm just saying why it might be that Breitbart is publishing this and not a larger outlet. People leaking stuff get impatient/nervous when they don't see their leak being published, so they move on to other outlets until they get the result they want.

I don't think the far left pushing this they have no power. Neo Liberals like Soros and the EU are pushing these companies to become more European in removing hate and far right/ left views.

I my opinion the google briefing mostly consists of ideological crap. There is no such thing as the “European tradition,” which “favors dignity over liberty and civility over freedom.” Europe was always and is still ideologically divided about both topics, exactly as the US. I think that Google pays too much for incompetent people who are producing buzzwords. However, the danger is, of course, that many people working there believe that stuff.

Consider this: the manufactured outrage that's been going around Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, etc. is meant to give birth to the idea of “public utilities” on the Internet. The government will have to "step-in". It will become a “fundamental right” to “rely on these platforms for truth/self-expression” or whatever nonsense they’ll come up with. This is indeed the dialectic: problem, reaction, solution.

Do you know of many public utilities you can voluntarily opt-out of? I didn’t think so. Also, in order for these great new rights not to be abused, people ought to be properly and formally identified on the Internet. Don’t you wonder why André Kudelski has been chairing Bilderberg? His company will build the mandatory “e-passport”. You have to identify yourself when you cross a physical border, it is natural you identify yourself when doing so virtually too <- that’s the shit he’s been spewing.

Of course such .gov initiatives would only create or cement corporate oligopolies and monopolies - that is the eternal purpose of plethoric regulation.

Reject regulation of any kind on the Internet. Trust the people. Twitter, Facebook or Google will suffer the same fate as so many other shitty companies before them, because the Internet is a very competitive ecosystem. But that's true because it is unregulated. Let's keep it that way. We just have to wait, and let them fail on their own.

There apparently isn't considering people think they have some sort of god given right to a youtube channel.

The only reason people would care that their shit isn't being hosted by facebook/google is if they have some sort of agenda to push.

Anyone else that's just shitposting and essentially gossiping would not give a single goddamn about what they do or don't allow on their sites because the second they disagree with it they can fuck off to the thousands of alternatives out there.

"oh but those sites don't have 5 billion views a month"

Only propaganda firms give a shit about that.

Sure, let me spend my life acting like im google so you can pretend you have a point.

You're acting like google has all the content in the world on youtube or something.

It does not.

In fact most quality content isn't on youtube.

You know what is? The rest of the garbage.

You're acting like google has some great stranglehold on content or something.

As a side note, they're so big and powerful yet can't even get NN passed, odd.

We'll end up with some sort of "net neutrality" that extends past ISPs to individual websites. There will be so many random regulations, that trying to start an online business will become more difficult, especially one that would challenge Alphabet/Google/Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, etc. All those companies have seen how quickly a tech site can go from #1 to last overnight, and they'll do anything to make it more difficult for startups to challenge them.

Yep, as with every corporation, they would like to cement their dominating position (through law and regulation). That's the actual danger.

Even though government agencies are the primary offenders when it comes to the collection and abuse of private data, and even though they are undoubtedly the driving force behind most corporations collecting data, they're virtually not mentioned at all in this supposed outrage.
That's one the dead-giveaways that this outrage was manufactured to present a narrative in which the corporations are being veered off track by greed and good-guy government needs to step in and put them in check.

Blockchain will be used for this

Google/CIA mistakenly assuming they already have enough of a stranglehold that people don't have anywhere else to go.

This should be at the top of the page.

It is being censored and blacked out everywhere.

Streisand effect

As James Evan Palato would say, "BUT MOM! THAT'S A BREITBART ARTICLE." I get this from people who share Salon and Vox articles with no sense of irony.

All of those are very biased news outlets. The information that comes from them but should be parsed with their bias in mind. What is really important to me, however, is the sources they cite (If any) and the credibility of those sources.

It seems the credible source in this case is google itself.

It is kind of silly coming from Breitbart though when they regularly censor people from their own comment section.

Just read the presentation for yourselves and draw your own conclusions: https://www.scribd.com/document/390521673/The-Good-Censor-GOOGLE-LEAK#

In my personal opinion it has a slight left-wing bias and doesn't communicate enough of the benefits of having limited regulation and/or anonymity, however the solutions it proposes seem to generally be a step in the right direction.

What's the "right" direction?

Read it and decide for yourself. The proposed solutions are at the bottom.

From what I read it seems that their goal is to both stop vitrol without censoring ideas, as outlined in their "Police tone, not content" proposed solution. I'm interested to see how they plan on implementing it.

Thanks, I will.

I'm asking you what you think the "right" direction is.

No, that part of what Google is doing I disagree with. However tone policing instead of content policing, I am okay with.

Can you clarify what "tone policing" is?

Given two examples of someone proposing an argument: 1. "You and all the fuckers like you should jump off a cliff for supporting X. Everyone knows that Y reason is bullshit and you're fucking retarded for believing it." 2. "I sincerely fail to understand your reasoning for supporting X. Almost everyone I know understands that Y reason simply isn't valid."

Number 1 is emotionally charged and I would have no problem with said user receiving a warning or a ban, regardless of what they were talking about or who they were talking to.

Number 2 is civil and doesn't resort to personal attacks or insults. No matter what they were saying or who they were talking to, I do not think they should ever receive a ban or a warning for that statement.

Often times when having a discussion people resort to using emotionally loaded words or personal attacks in addition to whatever point they are trying to make. In my opinion, if people are forced to take to time to actually think about their wording before posting I do believe it would reduce miscommunication and internet vitriol in general without actually censoring free speech.

A key component of this is not to police what someone might say, but simply how they might say it. Or offer suggestion as to how they could communicate their point in a manner that would be acceptable. Not even extremest statements should be banned as long as they are worded in a civil manner and aren't calls to action for real violence.

It really shouldn't matter what you say, only how you say it. Personally I believe that if someone isn't willing to take the time to phrase what they want to say in a civil manner, then they really don't care about saying it in the first place.

You're still speaking about censorship. Someone or some group or corporation in this case will decide what is acceptable and what is not.

I understand the emotional plea and the way it can be used and abused but that is still censorship.

I don't see that there is a right direction when its about censorship.

&#x200B;

Inteligent people can choose what they want to read/see and what they don't, there is zero need for some company/goverment to decided that for anyone.

They support free speech by not supporting free speech

They chose security over freedom. Which means they chose slavery over civility. Those fuckers.

Judging by the number of leaks that have emerged recently, there must be some serious discontent within Google.

Regulate like utilities. Google has more power than some nations. Unacceptable.

One of the slides in the "google document" marks breitbart as being #1 in free speech :bigthink:

The letter G of the google at the bottom left is clipped

&#x200B;

Some pictures are extremely low res and pixelized

&#x200B;

Whiter background around the youtube logo

We'll end up with some sort of "net neutrality" that extends past ISPs to individual websites. There will be so many random regulations, that trying to start an online business will become more difficult, especially one that would challenge Alphabet/Google/Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, etc. All those companies have seen how quickly a tech site can go from #1 to last overnight, and they'll do anything to make it more difficult for startups to challenge them.

Even though government agencies are the primary offenders when it comes to the collection and abuse of private data, and even though they are undoubtedly the driving force behind most corporations collecting data, they're virtually not mentioned at all in this supposed outrage.
That's one the dead-giveaways that this outrage was manufactured to present a narrative in which the corporations are being veered off track by greed and good-guy government needs to step in and put them in check.

Blockchain will be used for this

The letter G of the google at the bottom left is clipped

&#x200B;