Invest In Your Health - Try CBD Today! Click Herehttps://www.naturalhempoil.comThis episode contains a paid promotion at the beginning of the podcast.My Second Channel - https://www.youtube.com/timcastnewsYoutube's system flagged and restricted a video from The Atlantic depicting a meeting of the Alt Right. This video was important news coverage of a newsworthy event and youtube conflated it with h-a-t-e speech.The second story has to do with Facebook suspending the account of the Cambridge Analytica whistleblower.Make sure to subscribe for more travel, news, opinion, and documentary with Tim Pool everyday.Amazon Prime 30 day free trial - http://amzn.to/2sgiDqRMY GEARGoPro Karma - http://amzn.to/2qw10m4GoPro 6 - http://amzn.to/2CEK0z1DJI Mavic Drone - http://amzn.to/2lX9qgTZagg 12 AMP portable battery - http://amzn.to/2lXB6SxTASCAM Lavalier mic - http://amzn.to/2AwoIhI Canon HD XF 105 Camera - http://amzn.to/2m6v1o3Canon 5D MK III Camera - http://amzn.to/2CvFnnm360 Camera (VR) - http://amzn.to/2AxKu4RFOLLOW MEInstagram - http://instagram.com/TimcastTwitter - http://twitter.com/TimcastMinds - http://Minds.com/TimcastFacebook - http://facebook.com/TimcastnewsBitcoin Wallet: 13ha54MW2hYUS3q1jJhFyWdpNfdfMWtmhZSEND STUFF HERETim Pool330 Washington Street - PMB 517Hoboken, NJ 07030Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Why do these big social media networks ban certain users, restrict certain content, demonetize some accounts?
Is it because they want to get rid of hate speech?
Is it because they have a political leaning and they think, you know what, people shouldn't be saying these things?
Or is it because they want to protect their business and make money?
Now I know a lot of people are going to accuse the big social media platforms of having a political agenda, and while I think there's reason to believe that may be the case, certainly many people who work in Silicon Valley are very left-leaning, so obviously conservatives feel slighted, but is that really it?
Or is it really just these companies want to protect their business and make sure they can retain advertisers?
I certainly think that's the case.
Today we have two instances of censorship that are pretty terrifying.
The first, a backfire.
The Atlantic magazine had one of their videos placed in restricted mode and they had to appeal it.
But the scarier story is when Facebook censored a whistleblower because what the whistleblower said was damaging to
Facebook.
It's one thing if someone is banned, restricted, if a video is restricted and it's an accident.
Certainly, it's problematic.
It presents us a lot of issues.
But if it's an accident, we can sort of understand it while still criticizing the failure.
It's another thing when Facebook's stock value plummets due to a whistleblower, so they suspend the account of the whistleblower.
That is when censorship gets particularly scary.
But before I get into all that, let me give a quick shoutout to today's sponsor.
Natural Hemp Oil produces their products from sustainable hemp that is non-GMO and cultivated without pesticides, herbicides, or chemical fertilizers.
They currently have a vast array of products from flavored drops, beauty, anti-aging, pet products, edibles, authentic oils, and vaping.
Now, CBD will not get you high or make you incoherent.
These are for health-related purposes only.
Any veteran who registers and provides proof can get 15% off for life.
For everyone else, you can visit naturalhempoil.com and use the promo code TIMPOOL for 10% off of your purchase.
The first story from the Atlantic.
YouTube removes the Hail Trump video from search.
It said the Atlantic's footage, which captured alt-right members giving Nazi salutes, was borderline content under its hate speech policy.
It restored the video after being questioned Monday.
Less than two weeks after the 2016 election, a prominent alt-right leader addressed more than 200 people gathered at the Ronald Reagan building in Washington, D.C.
Millions of people would come to know what happened next.
Attendees in the room replied with shouts, applause, and Nazi salutes.
The speech closed the annual conference of the National Policy Institute, which describes itself as dedicated to the heritage, identity, and future of people of European descent in the United States and around the world.
Yet for all its notoriety, YouTube recently curtailed the video's spread on its platform and categorized it as borderline hate speech, a decision that illustrates the problems faced by the company as it tries to address the use of its platform to spread hate speech, conspiracy theories, and violent extremism.
What the Atlantic is referring to is what's known as a limited state.
Many videos that are deemed to be extremist or hate speech get put in this state where you can't actually see the comments, there's no more likes or dislikes, there's no share features, and you have to acknowledge the content is considered bad or inappropriate if you want to watch it.
These videos don't appear in search.
They are not recommended.
And it looks like The Atlantic's news video, a mainstream media company, a very large one at that, The Atlantic, is well-renowned.
Their video was placed in restricted mode, and it would seem like it was an accident.
After The Atlantic challenged the deactivation, YouTube allowed the video to appear in public searches again and reopened comments on Monday afternoon.
In a statement, a YouTube spokeswoman said that the video's delisting was a mistake.
With the volume of videos on our platform, sometimes we make mistakes, and when this is brought to our attention, we correct them.
We also give uploaders the ability to appeal these decisions, and we will re-review the videos, said the statement.
It is up to YouTube to hire people who can tell the difference between videos made by Nazis and videos about Nazis, said Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic.
This video is one of the most relevant videos pertaining to recent politics.
Before this, many people identified as alt-right because they thought it was something totally different.
And when they saw Richard Spencer say these things, throw out racist glass, and then many people threw Nazi salutes, that's when people realized what alt-right really meant.
And that's when a lot of people began to disavow their affiliation with the alt-right.
So these problems are going to happen.
Should YouTube be censoring speech?
In my opinion, no.
But so long as they are, we're going to see videos that should not be censored, be censored.
And this is the big problem that I've been talking about.
When newsworthy videos, when important stories get censored, restricted, or whatever, simply because the story itself is deemed hate speech or borderline hate speech.
That means fact-based news is under threat of being shut down.
It has happened.
You may remember the New York Times was suspended on Twitter for hate speech, for posting news.
This happened back in November.
Twitter, suspension of New York Times account was human error.
The account was locked for one day over the weekend.
This is not the first time factual news has been blocked.
On social media.
And this is why we need to be very careful about how censorship works.
But it actually goes beyond just censoring content.
You may have heard that Cambridge Analytica, a data firm that was taken on by the Trump campaign, is under scrutiny right now.
Channel 4 in the UK is airing an undercover series showing seemingly nefarious statements made by the company's CEO, Alexander Nix.
But we're not going to talk about Cambridge Analytica necessarily.
We're going to talk about the employee who blew the whistle on a data breach and what happened next.
According to fortune.com, why Facebook suspended the accounts of the Cambridge Analytica whistleblower.
A pair of bombshell articles hit on the weekend.
One from the Observer and the other from the New York Times, alleging that Cambridge Analytica surreptitiously acquired data on 50 million Facebook users.
The data was apparently collected through a personality test Facebook app that was devised by a University of Cambridge academic called Alexander Kogan with Wiley's help.
The Observer described Wiley as a Cambridge Analytica employee at the time the data was taken in 2014.
Although the company asserts he was a contractor.
Either way, he says he helped build Cambridge Analytica's psychological warfare tool.
And now Facebook has suspended Wiley's accounts on the social network and on Instagram, which it owns.
Carol Codwalder, the British journalist who spearheaded both the Observer and New York Times Cambridge Analytica exposés, tweeted that Wiley was also banned by WhatsApp, which Facebook also owns.
But WhatsApp contacted Fortune on Monday to say this was not the case.
On Twitter, Christopher Wiley said, suspended by Facebook for blowing the whistle on something they have known privately for two years.
Facebook is a massive platform.
Almost everybody has a Facebook account, at least in the U.S.
And to be suspended from it can be relatively detrimental because so many people use it for communication.
This individual did a service by exposing this data breach.
Now, there's a dispute here.
Cambridge Analytica is claiming they didn't do anything wrong.
Facebook is saying they didn't do anything wrong.
But the important thing is, we know people's data is being used in a way they probably do not appreciate.
And that's thanks to the whistleblower.
Facebook stock plummeted following the news.
From Zax.
Why is Facebook stock falling today?
Shares of Facebook were down more than 5% in early morning trading Monday after several media reports exposed an incident that allowed a political consulting firm to access data on up to 50 million Facebook users.
Is it possible That Facebook suspended the whistleblower in retaliation?
Certainly, everything's possible.
We don't really know.
And I don't think it's smart to assert this could just be a blanket suspension of many Cambridge Analytica employees.
But it does seem strange because this is the person who blew the whistle.
And this is the problem with censorship.
This person has been removed from two massive social media accounts.
And potentially, WhatsApp.
The WhatsApp does dispute that.
That's a messaging service.
Now Facebook, they can do what they want.
I know a lot of people have the argument that Facebook is a private company.
And if they don't want to allow you on their platform, they can certainly do that.
But you understand the problem here.
In the future, there may come some important information.
An individual might be holding onto that thumb drive, that USB, that micro SD card, holding seriously vital information to the public good, and they might say, but if I publish this, I will be banned from social life.
I will be removed from social media platforms.
What if this person used Facebook as part of their business?
What if they found customers on Facebook?
What if they ran a Facebook page that generated income through sponsorships and now their account is shut down?
Following the story, the hashtag delete Facebook has started trending.
And you can see when you search it on Google, all of these news stories about how to delete your Facebook and why people want to delete Facebook.
From Business Insider, delete Facebook is trending, here's how to delete your Facebook account.
People are furious and they have good reason to be.
Data from over 50 million Facebook users was used to target voters and influence the 2016 US presidential election, as well as the 2016 Brexit referendum, reports revealed over the weekend.
As a result, people are deleting their Facebook accounts en masse.
They then go on to show you how you can deactivate or delete your account.
And they're not the only ones!
There's numerous stories from major publications, VentureBeat, Wired, CBC, BGR, The Independent, CNET, talking about how you, too, can delete your Facebook.
I'm actually surprised that in about 24 hours, we have two massive examples of why it is so dangerous to enact censorship policies.
Facebook suspending a whistleblower.
Like I said, that's a slippery slope.
And are we going to end up in a future where people do not publish, do not reveal vital information out of fear of being removed from the biggest social media platform?
And then you have YouTube accidentally suspending a major news story.
Factual information that provided extremely important context in our current political climate.
And YouTube said, oops, it was an accident.
These accidents will keep happening.
And companies will censor people if those people threaten their platform.
They will remove people because they can do it.
And this is...
This is more than just censorship.
I've talked about this a long time ago, but we don't have a town square anymore.
We aren't meeting at City Hall and having these conversations.
We're having these conversations on social media platforms that are owned by private companies.
And then the argument is that, well, they can remove you if they want because it's their platform, or hate speech shouldn't be allowed.
But that means these conversations aren't going to happen, and that means we're going to struggle to progress.
If Facebook removes somebody who knows about this, and that person can't share the information, or something that he needs to say now to provide context to what he revealed, he can't do it on Facebook.
He's been removed from the conversation.
Imagine if a public gathering to discuss policy and the problems facing our society was silenced by a private company that walked in and said, you are not allowed to speak here.
Censorship is a problem, no matter who does it.
So it's pretty wonderful that we have the First Amendment, that we have protections against the government shutting down our speech.
We can't say the same thing for companies.
And I don't know what the solution is, but what I can say is, if there's going to be any example of censorship, curtailing speech, causing problems for our society, I will highlight them.
And maybe If we talk about it, we can come to an agreement as to how to deal with this.
From the mistakes, like YouTube has made, to the overt suspension of whistleblowers.
But let me know what you think in the comments below, and we'll keep the conversation going.
What do you think about the YouTube thing, and what do you think about the Facebook thing?
In one instance, we have the accident.
In one instance, we have the deliberate suspension of a whistleblower.
Are they on the same level as each other, or is one worse than the other?
