cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/3320637
YouTube and Reddit are sued for allegedly enabling the racist mass shooting in Buffalo that left 10 dead::The complementary lawsuits claim that the massacre in 2022 was made possible by tech giants, a local gun shop, and the gunman’s parents.
Youtube needs to be punished for their hypocrisy.
Average Joe gets a community guidelines strike for “promoting violence” because he said “Dead” instead of “Unalived”, but Penis Prager can advocate for beating your gay kids till they turn straight and YouTube just throws it into everyone’s playlists without so much as a “Boys will be boys”
Who is going to punish them? The leaders who agree with Prager that you can beat the gay out of your kids aren’t gonna get behind that.
A significant portion of our population is hoping for a way to degay their kids.
Man, I’m gonna be all doom and gloom when I go back to bed here in a few.
For me, it seems hopeless. We’ll all be further radicalized by the thing that I thought for most of my life would bring salvation, our access to the Library of Shitexander. A big old library filled with information, Ricky. Information on the workings of electricity. Information on the life and work of Isaac Newton. Information on how to cannibalize your neighbor. Information on how some grifter talks to god and knows exactly what he wants. We can learn useful skills like, how to hate black people and why we should. We can learn how to kickoff Armageddon, and why nuclear weapons are biblical and mutually assured destruction isn’t only a good thing, it’s what we should strive for.
And because we humans create information, we have arguments about who should decide what kind of information is available. Free speech absolutists will say that anything goes and is fair game. Others will say that some speech is dangerous because it influences hatred and bigotry. Each group has representation and has to compromise in order to keep things from escalating, oh but compromise might escalate things too.
Our species was born from chaos looking for a leader who didn’t exist.
I’m just gonna ride the rock until I’m not riding it any more and hope the people of the future don’t destroy each other and can someday figure out that that god ain’t coming back. What else can we do?
You guys have a good morning. I’m heading back to bed.
Jesus dude, you gave me an existential crisis.
Just ride the rock bud. We’re at least lucky enough to live in a time and place where we can play video games and eat pizza.
I spend too much time listening to and reading about the history of conflict and cults. It’s hard for me to have hope when I see the same thing happening over and over again for thousands of years.
I don’t need hope though because I’m an idiot who can’t change anything.
Good, smart people are out there working for change, seriously working. Maybe they’ll keep things together for a long time.
Maybe you can be one of them.
If not, just ride the rock and enjoy the things you enjoy. Nothing wrong with that.
I’m sorry I put my gloom on you.
Yea no man, you’re absolutely right
When I was radicalized I learned how to ride my bike with no handlebars
Personally I think everybody should shut the fuck up permanently.
Removed by mod
Penis Prager
I see you’re a person of culture as well… I know this reference.
There is a good reason for that, and that is that Penis Prager is a bigger payoff for Google.
yeah but the hypocrisy is so blatant
I think the root of the problem is the Republican party. If you look at the language the shooter used in his manifesto, it’s very very similar. There are things social media platforms can do to mitigate extremism, but people like this will continue to feel emboldened by the GOP.
Removed by mod
I think the thing isn’t just providing access to the content, but using algorithms to promote how likely it is for deranged people to view more and more content that fuel their motives for hateful acts instead of trying to reduce how often that content is seen, all because they make more money if they watch more content, wether it is harmful or not.
This.
I don’t know about Reddit, but YouTube 100% drives engagement by feeding users increasingly flammable and hateful content.
Hell they’ll even take ad money to promote Jan 6th conspiracies
Yeah, the difference is in whether or not the company is choosing what to put in front of a viewer’s eyes.
For the most part an ISP just shows people what they request. If someone gets bomb making directions from YouTube it would be insane to sue AT&T because AT&T delivered the appropriate packets when someone went to YouTube.
On the other end of the spectrum is something like Fox News. They hire every host, give them timeslots, have the opportunity to vet guests, accept advertising money to run against their content, and so on.
Section 512 of the DMCA treats “online service providers” like YouTube and Reddit as if they’re just ISPs, merely hosting content that is generated by users. OTOH, YouTube and Reddit use ML systems to decide what the users are shown. In the case of YouTube, the push to suggest content to users is pretty strong. You could argue they’re much closer to the Fox News side of things than to the ISP side these days. There’s no human making the decisions on what content should be shown, but does that matter?
Yep. I often fall asleep to long YouTube videos that are science or history related. The algorithm is the reason why I wake up at 3am to Joe Rogan. It’s like a terrible autocomplete.
Removed by mod
Absolutely. I saw a Google ad the other day from maybe PragerU that was about climate change not being real, while I was searching for an old article that was more optimistic about outcomes. They actually said by the ad that they were showing it as a suggested thing, and thankfully you could report it, which I did immediately. It pissed me off a ton.
A friend recently shared a similar suggested video/ad they got on YouTube, which was saying “Ukrainians are terrorists”. PragerU or TPUSA.
I can see the argument for allowing these ads to exist as a freedom of speech thing, fine. But actively promoting these ads is very different. The lawsuit would have merits on this. I’d prefer if this content was actively minimized, but at the very least it shouldn’t be promoted.
deleted by creator
and we all know what reddit mods do.
Removed by mod
If you were head of a psychiatric ward and had an employee you knew was telling patients “Boy, I sure wish someone would kill as many black people as they could”, you would absolutely share responsibility when on of them did exactly that.
If you were deliberately pairing that employee with patients who had shown violent behaviour on the basis of “they both seem to like violence”, you would absolutely share responsibility for that violence.
This isn’t a matter of “there’s just so much content, however can we check it all?”.
Reddit has hosted multiple extremist and dangerous communities, claiming “we’re just the platform!” while handing over the very predictable post histories of mass shooters week after week.
YouTube has built an algorithm and monetisation system that is deliberately designed to lure people down rabbit holes then done nothing to stop it luring people towards domestic terrorism.
It’s a lawsuit against companies worth billions. They’re not being executed. There are grounds to accuse them of knowingly profiting from the grooming of terrorists and if they want to prove that’s not the case, they can do it in court.
Do ISPs actively encourage you to watch extremist content? Do they push that content toward people who are at risk of radicalization to get extra money?
I think to blame/sue the company that is nearest to the user should work fine. (following is hyperbolical) If you don’t do it that way, then yes it would be slippery because the big bang would need to be sued. But that makes no sense.
Removed by mod
No, because these things should be private. Social media however needs some kind of moderation. edit: also go blame the user too, but that should be a given
Removed by mod
Blocking a user and removing content from a platform should be relatively easy and fast which should prevent organized crimes. Sueing someone afterwords takes way more resources and time.
But a platform can remove content without getting sued. Why sue them too? Because if you don’t sue their asses they don’t care.
Of course moderation takes time and can’t be perfect and this should be considered when suing the platform owners. And yes this could help the assholes, but I think you can report such behavior to the fbi or someone.
Change mail (private) to moderated public notice board (not private). The owner of the public notice board should probably be sued for allowing the content to stay up.
If my buddies and spend a month plotting a crimer in my cousin’s spare room, the cousin would be complicit since he knowingly allowed us to use his property for a criminal conspiracy. The USPS doesn’t know what i am sending in the mail since they are a common carrier.
Great analogy
Actually, they’d just try to seize his house, since proving his complicity is more challenging than proving that the house was used for the planning of a crime.
Is the postal service intentionally increasing mail to people interested in attacks by people messaging that attacks are necessary? If the postal service is doing that to increase the total postal volume, then yes, we should.
Do you think a closed envelope going through the USPS is the same as a public comment going through Reddit?
Utilities aren’t the same thing as platforms.
But giant media platforms run by giant tech corportations who have repeatedly shown that they don’t give a shit about people? If they’re not putting railguards on their algorithm and content out of choice and are consequently creating mass murderers, then they should be regulated to have some railguards.
No corporation has proven that it will make the best choices for society, it’s up to people to force them to.
the isps don’t encourage people to see content that makes them mad
I agree that his parents are culpable.
Everytown Law is about to get a lesson on how Section 230 works.
Pretty sure SCOTUS has a case they’re hearing currently that may very well change the scope of section 230 so I’d maybe reserve your quips until after that shakes out lol
The two big cases this year were already decided: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter,_Inc._v._Taamneh and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzalez_v._Google_LLC
Although both dodged the S230 claims, both made it clear that Twitter and Google, respectively, had no liability.
Is there another case I missed?
spoiler
sadfasfasdfsa
Ah, to be based on selective history and tradition.
Big tech says no.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Yes?
Go take a political litmus test of every gang member in the US and see how many are conservatives.
Active shooters make a drop in the pale comparatively, they’re just the ones the media focuses on because it’s the narrative they prefer.
Ah yes, the famously politically active gang members.
They shoot each other in the name of societal wealth distribution, everyone knows that
Politically Active? Since when was that the metric? We are just talking about political alignment.
And why do you think they’re Dem?
They likely don’t care about politics
Crips and Bloods out there endorsing Biden.
🙄
Removed by mod
I’m pretty sure most cops lean right soooo
You really don’t see why the media would focus on a random mass killing instead of 2 scumbags shooting at each other over drugs? Weird.
2? More like thousands. If guns are the problem, then guns are the problem. We don’t need to focus on specific gun crime when those crimes are once again a drop in the bucket.
That’s why it’s weird.
Guns are indeed the problem. As every other developed nation shows.
Why people still claim the US is developed beats me, they belong in the same line as Brazil and Mexico (no offence Brazilians and Mexicans)
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Lmao you should read up
No u.
Here, I’ll give you a head start:
University of Maryland Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice
our analysis shows that right-wing actors are significantly more violent than left-wing actors
the probability of a violent act of extremism in the United States being committed by a left-wing extremist was found to be 0.33, 0.61 by a right-wing extremist, and 0.62 by an Islamist extremist.You’ll notice that’s double the incidents from the right vs the left.
Military Times, which no one could reasonably claim has any liberal bias
But terrorism carried out by right-wing actors eclipsed that of leftist movements in the 1990s … Now, government agencies and scholars across the political spectrum agree that far-right movements have caused most of the political violence in the U.S. over the past few years – and present the most dangerous threat today.
West Point Combating Terrorism Center – and again, West Point can hardly be called liberal
Accelerationist ideology, conspiracy theories, disinformation, and far-right extremist narratives have played a key role in the prioritization of critical infrastructure as a target for the violent far-right. The intersections of these ideologies and narratives have led to complex attacks on power grids and the targeting of telecommunications systems by far-right extremists. The increased focus and attacks on critical infrastructure by far-right extremists has the potential to wreak extensive, multifaceted societal disruption and damage, impacting communications, the economy, mobility, and basic human necessities.
Can you provide legitimate, unbiased sources for your claims? Because all the data says you’re being lied to.
I live in LA def ain’t conservatives out here shooting it up. I can just go see if in real life stay to your online life
Mhm. Your anecdotal ‘feels’ outweigh actual data, sounds about right(wing).
How about you at least try to back up what you say with anything at all beyond ‘I believe it’s true’? Because nobody outside your bubble is going to take that seriously.
I’m from a city roughly the size and makeup of LA, so you can keep your ‘online life’ comment to yourself.
e-side note: real people are behind these usernames, you know. Not NPCs or drones, but actual people with lives sharing similarities to your own in varying degrees. People aren’t black and white caricatures, and treating them as though they’re hypothetical characters in fake worlds further detaches you from them and can lead to a distorted worldview.
It’s important keep remembering that, because bad actors have been working hard to take advantage of the tendency we all have towards this.
“The conservative party enables gun violence” and “conservatives commit the most gun violence” are completely separate and independent statements. The person you’re replying to is saying the former, not the latter.
In other words, they aren’t saying that Republicans commit the majority of gun violence, but that the policies championed and implemented by Republicans are responsible for gun violence occurring.
And whether or not Republicans like it, they admit this all the time, although not the way you’d think. The GOP likes to say that mental health is the driver of gun violence and mass shootings, but simultaneously, the GOP votes against improved mental healthcare and even slashes funding for it.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Most shootings happen with legally bought guns, but okay.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
If you look at anything even remotely related to “men’s interests” YouTube will begin showing you alt right fascist bull shit.
Seriously. I spend a little too much time watching a short that is clearly designed to get me worked up about stereotypical communication difficulties between men & women from a “women, am I rite?” perspective, suddenly I’m getting Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan. I spend a little too much time watching a video about certain Ukrainian war equipment or a Slo Mo Guys video involving guns (wood stock hunting guns, I felt like it was the early 80s all over again before everyone decided they needed assault weapons), suddenly I’m getting served tacticool idiots with kitted-out murder machines. Or I watch a Bart Erhman video (secular New Testament scholar with a large lay audience) and suddenly I get served muslim da’wah/apologetics videos and Catholic catechism ads.
Lots of stupid, emotionally driven teenagers on the platform who think their opinion is reality, so you have a lot of Tate/Peterson/Rogan riders on the platform. Add in the fact ‘controversial’ (blatantly wrong or insane) content gets lots of comments/engagement, so it is pushed by the algorithm. Then there are just lots of idiots in general who don’t want to consider self-reflection or change their vies, so they will eat up all the ideology that shifts the blame or gives them a chance to ‘get to the top.’ They are victims of modern society. But somehow see every ‘problem’ except for the real one, the one of neoliberal ideologies around capitalism and individualism.
I just wish that I could watch (intentionally or accidentally) a slightly hot-take video once in a blue moon without the algorithm deciding I’m a right-wing nutjob that only wants right-wing nutjob content. How hard would it be to allow users to give active input on what they’re getting? Right now, anything I do (downvoting, “don’t recommend this channel”, reporting hate speech) gives me MORE of the shit I hate.
If you look at anything even remotely related to “men’s interests” YouTube will begin showing you alt right fascist bull shit.
Or if you don’t. Youtube shorts recommends Rogan constantly.
If youtube is still pushing racist and alt right content on to people, then they can get fucked. Why should we let some recommender system controlled by a private corporation have this much influence American culture and politics??
I sub to primarily leftist content and their YouTube shorts algorithm insists on recommending the most vile far right content on the planet. It is to the point that I’m convinced YouTube is intentionally trying to shift people far right
I primarily watch woodworking or baking content on Youtube. I feel like the far right content is super prevalent with Shorts. I’ll watch something like a quick tool review, and the next video will be someone asking folks on the street if it’s ok to be white. What color you are isn’t your decision, but what you do every day is, and being some dumbass white kid accosting black tourists in Times Square for shitty reaction content is just gross.
It doesn’t matter how often I say I dislike the content, block channels or whatever, Youtube has just decided it’s going to check in from time to time and see if I want to let loose my inner Boomer and rage with Rogan.
deleted by creator
It could be that pushing videos on the other side of the political spectrum gets interactions in the form of people sharing/commenting on it. Even if you disagree, going “Why does YouTube recommend this, this is awful” is still a share.
The algorithm prioritises interactions above all else, and fewer things get people interacting more than being wrong, or them disagreeing vehemently.
deleted by creator
This is happening on my FB video feed. I watch a funny chick called Charlotte Dobre and she does funny reaction videos. I honestly love her, but all my algorithm shows me for recommendations are these cop brutality videos with comments praising the cops, and right wing crap that praises Abbotts wall and desantis dictatorship. It drives me nuts, and no matter howany pages I block I always get more right wing recommended crap videos
I literally only get Marvel Snap/general gaming, College Humor, tech, educational, stand up comedy, and drones. That’s it. I don’t mean to victim blame, but it learns what you click and what you stay to watch.
I am pretty sure it is just showing politically charged content based on people watching other politically charged content. I feel the blame is misdirected at something that only provides content people will like based on their past.
Mine acted similar to yours. I recently started watching a few more short videos and now it’s showing me an unfortunate amount of that far right nonsense.
Depends entirely on what you’re subscribed to, if you have multiple linked youtube accounts (such as the premium family plan) it depends on what THEY’RE subscribed to, and depends on location (my recommendations at home and my recommendations at work are wildly different)
Wow I am so surprised by this. I watch mainly tech and gardening YouTube and my shorts have been extremely applicable to me.
Even when I use a new computer like at work the shorts are mostly pop culture.
Didn’t make shorts any less annoying though
I wonder if this differs from country to country? Or is it different in Europe vs US? I get maths, engineering, music. Nothing too awful. But there is clearly a fully conscious and malicious push to the right going on on all large platforms. It seems Europe is trying to step in and limit that shit from big US platforms before it’s too late. Then we have censorship looming on the other side of the picture.
I’m in UK and I often get YouTube shorts made by/for US alt right. These include Ben Shapiro, Tucker, Tate and Jordan Peterson - also people complaining about Bud Light. I always dislike this content and alot of the Tate stuff needs reporting.
I’m left wing and very rarely get left wing content. I don’t remember ever being shown any extreme left wing content.
The left wing UK content I get is MPs is Westminster’s making speeches, the UK right wing content is manufactured publicity made by the Tories.
Additionally being in Scotland and liking music seems to cause Google to serve you YouTube shorts of Scottish marching bands. Google doesn’t seem to realise flute (not traditional bagpipe/kilt bands) in Scotland are mostly hate groups. These orange bands are the group that became the KKK in America. They just aren’t recognised as a hate group in the UK because they support monarchy, unionism and are actively courted/involved with both Tories and Labour. Despite playing music encouraging the death of other religious groups and using their marches as intimidation.
True that. I also never see anything really left wing. But then I really try to avoid political stuff on Youtube. I don’t want to see video content that makes me angry.
I’ve noticed that my punk music recommendations always seem to quickly get politically innocuous. It’s like the punk always gets gradually filtered out of my recommendations again, while the math, jazz, world music, metal, botany, craft, etc. remains.
I never really take the effort to dislike anything. Not giving it any time or effort maybe makes a difference? Interesting fact about the Scottish marching bands. Makes me concerned that as a person obsessed with international folk music I might accidentally like something nationalistic. Especially in the Balkans it quickly gets complicated and genocide-y.
I recently started to get a few right wing channels starting to show up but I promptly clicked not interested and blocked them with a Firefox extension
If you ever go on YouTube not logged into your account (or in a provate browser), the default stuff on the homepage are: one lo-fi stream, Mr. Beast latest video, and the rest is all right wing feaemonger stuff.
deleted by creator
Good. Civil court is where they’re most vulnerable, this is called tort law.
In criminal cases, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers. In a civil lawsuit, the defendant is only innocent until a judge, or jury, depending thinks they’re 51% likely to be guilty, what they call the preponderance of evidence.
In other words, “probably” is good enough when you sue someone. It is not good enough if the state is trying to throw you in prison. This makes it more efficient to process the 99% of civil court cases, which are usually just dumb shit, like which of these two arguing neighbors needs to pay for having a tree on their property line cut down or something. It also results in our civil system being a very effective weapon though, as a lot of wealthier and more powerful people know pretty well.
edit for italics
edit2: If anyone doubts me you can just google “tort” and read all about our American system on wikipedia, or any number of other places.
edit3: juries in civil too.
I don’t really know why you emphasized judge. Jury trials are very common in civil cases. This will be a pretrial dismissal or summary judgement without a jury, however. There’s nothing to discover or evidence to review that’s contested.
True, jury trials are common in civil. They’re just not the majority, and I’m trying to draw a simplified picture I suppose. It’ll edit it again.
They should sue Facebook too. Facebook is rife with Nazis. And they’re fine with it.
Considering the Facebook algorithm will introduce you to neo-nazis, that would actually make sense.
Facebook says this guy’s face is fine: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100086229708504&mibextid=ZbWKwL
Dude looks like he passed out way too early at a frat party hosted by the Klan.
He’s allowed to be racist, so yeah, it’s fine.
Being a racist piece of shit is not illegal.
Have the been any legal cases on these algorithms?
deleted by creator
Good! They should. Facebook’s algorithm supports Nazis.
deleted by creator
You have klan members in Congress, supreme court, churches and every police department, but sure, YT and Reddit are the problem.
Reddit, youtube, and tiktok are quickly becoming the new, “video games cause violence” cry from reactionaries. Hell you see people here claiming tiktok is going to make all the kids have 2 second attention spans. It’s all just scapegoats for other systematic failures in culture, education, and social saftey nets, but those are hard to fix. Easier to just blame the platform and not make any real changes.
Removed by mod
Fair enough! I should’ve said, and have corrected it to, reactionaries.
Also I didn’t really mean it in as US centric way hence saying conservatives rather than Republicans. More of the philosophy of conservativism instead of the political oriented conservatives. You know, trying to maintain old institutions at all costs, automatically assuming new institutions are not as good, only finding faults in new methods/institutions while ignoring the faults with the old, etc.
Probably because it’s Republicans making the content and doing the shootings.
Removed by mod
Cool, now do the other 500.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Not at all like blaming guns. A gun is a tool used to cause death. The other things are all being claimed as vectors to cause someone to use a gun to cause death. If someone didn’t have easy access to a gun it would be much harder to go on a killing spree regardless of how radicalized they are.
Removed by mod
You come at me with a box cutter and I’ll defend myself with a rifle and let’s see which one is more dangerous.
I’m fine with people renting box trucks and using knives in mass murder attempts, because statistically those attempts are far less successful than those with guns.
Shit one QAnon lunatic tried to ram a hospital ship with a train. Fuck em. Let em fail.
There can be two problems.
The two problems can have disproportionate sizes. Drumming up hysteria about reddit and yt is basically a distraction when you have people in public life endorsing the fringe ideas floating on these platforms.
It’s been the Republican playbook for decades. Get the populace riled up about Satan or Gays or AIDS or now trans people and you can rob them blind while saying it was them.
There can also be two solutions.
Did you want to personally rubber stamp each of them?
Yes.
At the very least, they shouldn’t be promoting this content. There’s a difference between hosting content and actively suggesting it to users.
I mean lookingbat the details for the basis of the suit. They think they can sue someone for teaching a criminal how to do something. They think they can sue the makers of body armor for selling a guy who was not a criminal at the time of purchase, an unregulated commercial product. They think they can sue YouTube for providing motive for whatever he did.
In the law world theres a word for this. Its called a shakedown. This is grieving family’s who are vindictive. They dont care who pays, but somebody has to pay in their eyes. Sadly on the merits this case will die in court pretty fast and nobody is gonna see a dollar unless alphabet and spez’s lawyers decide they are feeling charitable. Which they won’t because settling would cause implications of guilt in the public eye.
Removed by mod
Yeah some families are vindictive but ALL lawyers are ready to press a case like this as long as they think they can win.
Removed by mod
I’m not sure that’s true. Families don’t always have deep pockets. The lawyer is paid a % of the settlement, which is probably more money than the family could just pay out of pocket. But it does mean they need to win, so they pick their cases. I mean if you pay them well in cash they’ll likely take any case. But a lot of personal injury cases and such are paid on a percentage.
Removed by mod
It’s a sliding scale built on risk and reward.
They will take the case if they think they can win OR when they only have a chance of winning but the settlement is going to be large.
25% chance of a $10 million settlement with a big corporation: take the case.
90% chance of multi hundred thousand dollar insurance payout: take the case.
Probably they also consider the amount of work. For all we know, both of the above could be just 10-20 hours of work.
Yeah, they should also sue the ISP, the power company, the company who built the criminal’s house and the people who paved the road he used. /s
Oh not wait they are suing ISPs for zeroes and ones that flow through their cables. Strange world we live in. No one would have sued the postal service for a letter they got, or their telco for a call they received before the www.
nailed it
sadly… this case will die in court
Only part I disagree with. It’s a very good thing that this case dies in court. It really does suck for the families, sure, but if these kinds of lawsuits worked it would cause a whole lot more problems than it solves.
Former Australian Deputy Premier won a case against Google in 2022 arguing that the YouTube platform enabled journalist FriendlyJordies to make fun of him, and he won a $715,000 settlement.
Edit: Thanks for the correction, guys
Also, not a former Australian prime minister. He was the deputy premier of New South Wales.
I’m still learning Australian political terminology, you are right, I had prime minister and deputy premier confused.
FYI, the premier is like the state governor and the prime minister is like the president.
YouTube may end up being protected by Safe Harbor laws:
715 thousand. Not millions
Changed it. What’s a zero here or a zero there between politicians though…
True
How is this a “shakedown”?
They literally explained why it was a shakedown. I don’t know what else needs to be said.
The parents of the victims are suing organizations that have no chance of being held liable in the hopes that they get some form of payout. That’s what a shakedown is.
It’s tragic and I get their anger, but this isn’t going to succeed. Any legal team worth its retainer fee will successfully defend this.
There’s no blackmail or extortion of money, it’s a litigation suit on companies to be held liable. That’s not defined as a shakedown.
The term “shakedown” has been used to describe frivolous lawsuits seeking to strong-arm settlements from defendants for decades. Language is descriptive, not prescriptive.
I don’t think that ordinary non-billionaire humans suing Google is strong-arming by any sense of the imagination. Google has the deep pockets and the top legal team. Google could invent lawsuits about whatever the fuck it wanted to and destroy each and every one of these people until the end of time. PR is the only reason they don’t. Not fear of court imposed sanctions—they’re too slick for that.
Feels good to be reading this somewhere other than reddit
They blamed books for copy cat killers, movies and video games for shootings now they want to blame websites…
now they are trying to sue people because of hindsight? this isn’t Minority Report. this is ‘lets throw allot of torts and other legal bs on the wall and pray something sticks’
Making legal precedent so that they AVOID showing the offending content instead of PROMOTING the offending content is probably the goal
About 30-40 times a day, Youtube shorts shows me videos actively advocating violence, and I know for sure that Google has enough money and resources currently to prevent these videos being shown, considering it AUTOMATICALLY SUBTITLES THEM
I had to manually report a 100k views short showing someone killing a snail with an air gun. It got removed almost instantly.
Sure, it’s a snail, and sure, it’s an air gun, but exactly this type of videos are breeding grounds for sickos. And no YouTube, the 1mil sub Minecraft channel that said “kill a creep” is not really violent, neither is some who says “fuck” in the first 30 seconds.
Gosh I hate the platform.
I’m guessing you’re algorithms from search results generate that content cuz I never see this kind of stuff
I’m a lefty tree hugger who subscribes to frugal living and DIY home maintenance channels… I get right wing Jordan Peterson/ Joe Rogan bullshit in my feed every time I log on.
I actively click not interested…it still comes. I clear my browser history often, it still comes.
You should pause your watch history altogether if you’re getting this kinda shit. Youtube has stopped recommend anything to people altogether who have completely paused their watch history.
deleted by creator
Your “lefty” content prompts the algorithm to show you opposing content, which is literally what people are clamoring for, because odds are high that you will engage with it, and engagement is the only thing it looks for.
If you only liked Trump shit it’d show you a minority of left-leaning content as well.
I have been telling youtube im not interested in Joe Rogan for years. It still gives me joe rogan youtube shorts
Doesn’t help that everyone and their mother has a channel that only shows Joe Rogan clips. I don’t even like this shit YouTube, why can I recognize it from the fucking microphone.
You probably has some Joe Rogan video in your watch history.
Even hovering over those shorts can get them added on there for some dumb reason.
Go purge your history and see how much it improves.
hmm, I have watch history off. Is that why it keeps suggesting him so much? Im getting the ‘defaults’?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
did I say you were a liar? Christ… I don’t get this shit in my feed, that’s my reality
It’s not a conspiracy theory to assume and algorithm takes what you watch and are interested in into account. That’s what it does.
It is a conspiracy theory, and an easily disproven one, to suggest the algorithm forces this content on you.
deleted by creator
What are you searching for that YouTube shorts shows you this?
Dont need to look at a lot, if you remember 2015 youtube suggestions youve got a pretty good idea of how bad the shorts algorithm is. I dont personally use them bur my friend does.
You don’t generally search with YouTube shorts, it presents you with content About 20% is YOUR recommendations (channels you subscribe to) 20% is near-interests (people who do similar content) 20% is whatever is popular at the moment, or whatever a la carte foreign language/low effort content (garena free fire, fortnite) it wants to give you 20% is locational (at home I get anime recommendations due to housemate, at work I get Vegas/Disney vacation or AI garbage) 20% is whatever the algorithm is pushing (channels I have BLOCKED but still appear, tiktok exiles, cooking videos)
🤔 so if gun violence is a problem… and they’ve already banned violence… what if one would ban the other thing - oh wait no it’s definitely the goofy gamer machinimas 🤭 stop giggling y’all, this is serious. you don’t wanna turn into criminals
Are you suggesting “banning guns”? If so, genuine curiosity, how would you go about doing it?
I guess a good start would be document gun holders digitally and not on a pile of paper where nobody finds anything and has water damage. Another approach would be not having guns sold in the supermarket. Furthermore, you could ban ads for guns and make it very hard to buy heavy stuff used only in war zone. And lastly restrict who and how weapons are allowed to be transported on man. Of course, one has to have a valid reason to have a weapon on them. Going shopping with a gun out of fear is mot a reason.
First we have to stop bringing new weapons to people, than we can think about collecting
I’m Swiss, we have nearly as many private weapons per household as Americans have, but we have way less shootings, all the things above apply here and I think it kinda works.
TIL they show ads for guns. What exactly do they advertise?
Well that is one thing I’m not 100% sure, but NRA 100% does political pro gun ads on TV (and most likely precisely targeted in social media) I just assumed there are normal gun ads since, well, it’s America.
https://youtu.be/ks2_wY7f-MM?si=SWzCvmHLKdys7jFt
Just skipped through that and it seems most tv networks refuse gun ads, but it seems not illegal by law to show gun ads on tv.
deleted by creator
It seems like New York goes in the right direction then, nice to see! I bet one sees the difference in the statistics for gun violence compared to other states of America. Umm, is NY a state or a city or both? 😂 not so sure right now
deleted by creator
If you order by “Murder Rate (per 100,000) (2019)”
Do the states with less murders per 100,000 than New York have more strict gun rules? (In case you happen to know that)
deleted by creator
The same way we banned private ownership of nuclear missiles.
Yeah that was crazy when they had to go around and confiscate all those nuclear missiles from millions of American households.
God, please don’t give the GOP any ideas, the last thing we need is nuclear proliferation among Trumpers.
Could ask Australia
I would copy-paste what already worked in Australia, which used to have similar gun rights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0aGGOK4kAM
They banned violence. Clearly banning things is effective. It worked when they banned drugs. And 100 years ago when they banned alcohol. And there’s definitely no sex workers because prostitution is banned.
Yet somehow, the bans on hand grenades, landmines and giant bags of anfo have worked. It’s almost like it’s easier to control the production of weapons and dangerous goods than plants and sex.
Gun control works the world over.
ANFO isn’t banned, people use it all the time.
I am using the pro-gun community definition of the word “banned” that means “not actually banned, just regulated”.
You can also buy hand grenades with the appropriate permits and background checks. You know, just like guns in almost every other country where the pro-gun community insists they’re “banned”.
deleted by creator
Why don’t you walk us through the process of legally acquiring a brand new, new full-auto rifle in America?
You can’t? Oh shit, guns must be banned in America.
The reality is that before you started your little pro-gun death cult, America routinely made risk vs reward judgements on firearms, no different than the UK did when they decided the murder weapon of choice for criminals and men who can’t control their emotions doesn’t have a place in modern society.
Anyway, talk next time there’s horrific violence that makes international headlines. Do you think it’s going to be from America or the UK?
deleted by creator
I don’t think I mentioned guns at all. If you assume banning guns would be equally ineffective I can’t say I disagree, but that’s a conclusion you came to.
Noone is saying ban guns. People are saying we should have more thorough background checks, mandatory training, and close gun show loop holes. No, banning things doesn’t completely solve the issue. But putting obstacles in the way generally stop most crimes. Of course there will still be people who go above and beyond to commit a crime, but with the number of shootings drastically lowered you can start to address the rest more easily.
Bad news…tons of people want to ban guns thinking it’ll stop the violence…
People want to regulate guns, not ban them. If a supply is reduced and people lock up the guns they do have rather than leaving them to be easily stolen, they’re less likely to be used in violence. That means when people are violent, they’re more likely to use a knife or other weapon that’s more convenient to access. When a knife is used, it’s highly unlikely that bystanders will also be killed. Also, it’s less likely that the victim themselves will die. And if you think you don’t care about the life of another person involved in violence, think selfishly about the cost that you’re paying in hospital costs and medical insurance to treat gun woulds of the people who die and can’t pay their bill which cost way, way more to treat than knife wounds. Not to mention that if you care at all about the lives of cops, you’ll realize that cops are usually the bystanders that get killed by the guns being used in violent acts.
The only guns that people want to ban are offensive weapons of war. The only thing they can do with that is commit terrorism.
People want to regulate guns, not ban them.
That’s some bullshit. The end goal is complete disarming of the public. Stop fooling yourself.
If a supply is reduced and people lock up the guns they do have rather than leaving them to be easily stolen, they’re less likely to be used in violence
Straw purchases are how the majority of firearms used in crime are obtained, not from theft.
That means when people are violent, they’re more likely to use a knife or other weapon that’s more convenient to access. When a knife is used, it’s highly unlikely that bystanders will also be killed.
Yes tell that to all the people who are killed by knives. Which is 3xs higher than all rifles combined. Which you clearly want to ban…that black plastic rifle you think is a weapon of war, kills around 50-100 people a year. Hands and feet kill 2xs all rifles combined and about 15xs more than the AR-15 yearly.
Also, it’s less likely that the victim themselves will die.
This is just nonsense…see above.
And if you think you don’t care about the life of another person involved in violence, think selfishly about the cost that you’re paying in hospital costs and medical insurance to treat gun woulds of the people who die and can’t pay their bill which cost way, way more to treat than knife wounds. Not to mention that if you care at all about the lives of cops, you’ll realize that cops are usually the bystanders that get killed by the guns being used in violent acts.
First, I’m all for single payer healthcare, secondly, cops kill on average around 1k Americans a year…yea… I’m not worried about the boots…
The only guns that people want to ban are offensive weapons of war. The only thing they can do with that is commit terrorism.
Lol handguns are used in 95% of all gun violence…and it’s like 99% of all suicides. That black scary rifle is a rounding error on firearm deaths…and it’s not a weapon of war, it’s a semi-auto rifle dressed up in plastic…the military wouldn’t be caught dead with one of them.
You totally missed every point I made and replied with, no they’re not rather than offering any evidence. Show me that the majority are pushing to ban all guns 100%. Straw purchases are already illegal but unenforced, can’t do much when cops refuse to do their job. I didn’t say people don’t die from knives, but a stab isn’t going to kill a random person on the street accidentally like a stray bullet. And there’s a huge difference between a knife wound and a bullet wound that makes it much easier to treat. And the knife doesn’t break apart, shredding nearby organs, rarely breaks larger bones, or in the case of supersonic rounds from the mentioned weapons of war, cause compression shockwaves that pulverize organs. If you haven’t spent time in combat or an ER or around gunshot wounds, you have no idea. I’ve seen organ soup after a close range stomach wound from a high powered rifle. And I don’t care that handguns are the most common. They’re also the most commonly used for defense. It’s the high powered ruffles that liquify your organs when used in drive-by shootings that have no reason to be in the hands of civilians in the first place.
If you’re going to argue for a cause, then at least know what the people on the other side are saying. Quit making up straw men and arguing slippery slope nonsense.
Removed by mod
Will be dismissed on section 230 grounds.
Their content promotion algorithms are not protected by section 230. Those algorithms are the real problem, pushing more and more radical content onto vulnerable minds. (The alt-right YouTube pipeline is pretty well documented. Reddit, I think, less so. But they still promote “similar content”)
Section 230 requires "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230#:~:text=good faith removal or moderation of third-party material Selection of click-bait algorithms is a choice. At least, they could select out promotion of murder and maiming without a sled ride.
