YouTube Opens 'Second Chance' Program To Creators Banned For Misinformation (theverge.com)
- Reference: 0179732926
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/10/09/2048221/youtube-opens-second-chance-program-to-creators-banned-for-misinformation
- Source link: https://www.theverge.com/news/797848/youtube-banned-creators-second-chance-program-covid-election-misinformation-new-channel
> Under political pressure, the company had [2]said last month that it was going to set up this pilot program for "a subset of creators" and "channels terminated for policies that have been deprecated." [...] The new pilot program kicks off today and will roll out to "eligible creators" over the "next several weeks," YouTube [3]says . "We'll consider several factors when evaluating requests for new channels, like whether the creator committed particularly severe or persistent violations of our Community Guidelines or Terms of Service, or whether the creator's on- or off-platform activity harmed or may continue to harm the YouTube community."
>
> The pilot won't be available if you were banned for copyright infringement or for violating YouTube's Creator Responsibility policies, the company says. If you deleted your YouTube channel or Google account, you won't be able to request a new channel "at this time." And YouTube notes that if your channel has been banned, you won't be eligible to apply for a new one until one year after it was terminated.
"We know many terminated creators deserve a second chance -- YouTube has evolved and changed over the past 20 years, and we've had our share of second chances to get things right with our community too," YouTube says. "Our goal is to roll this out to creators who are eligible to apply over the coming months, and we appreciate the patience as we ramp up, carefully review requests, and learn as we go."
[1] https://www.theverge.com/news/797848/youtube-banned-creators-second-chance-program-covid-election-misinformation-new-channel
[2] https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/09/23/2123257/youtube-reinstating-creators-banned-for-covid-19-election-content
[3] https://blog.youtube/inside-youtube/second-chances-on-youtube/
Re: "Mis-information" = BS Madup word ;-D (Score:2)
Because they are doing it for money so anything else is fraud
Re: (Score:1)
> Because they are doing it for money so anything else is fraud
So an actor playing a doctor in a movie is fraud in your mind?
Re: (Score:2)
> So an actor playing a doctor in a movie is fraud in your mind?
My dear, fine friend, your logical fallacy is the ridiculous example.
Re: "Mis-information" = BS Madup word ;-D (Score:1)
Hahahaha misinformation has existed as a word since the 16th century you ignorant dolt. Next you are going to tell us that the Great Moon Hoax was actual based on factual evidence that the moon hosts human bat like creatures and unicorns. There are facts in this world despite what Trumpers would like to think otherwise. Place a loaded gun to your head then pull the trigger to solve your idiocy.
Re: (Score:2)
> Misinformation is facts, presented in a way intended to lead viewers to a NOT Factual conclusion.
That is [1]disinformation. [wikipedia.org]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation
Re: "Mis-information" = BS Madup word ;-D (Score:2)
Everyone that doesn't understand what misinformation is should irrigate their nasal passages with hot shallow pond water to boost activity of their immune system.
That's factual, it will make your immune system go wild. It's also misleading, and dangerous. But only if you believe in misinformation, if you don't, then make sure you get the water all the way up there for maximum effect.
Nope. (Score:3, Insightful)
Same as in personal relationships, it is inadvisable to go back to an abusive partner.
Re: (Score:2)
> Everyone knows
Everyone? We've told you a million times: Stop exaggerating.
Do the dead get a second chance as well? (Score:2)
I mean the ones who died due to these creators' misinformation about COVID.
Re: (Score:2)
> I mean the ones who died due to these creators' misinformation about COVID.
Fortunately, the vast majority were [1]covid deniers [sacurrent.com] so we won't have to [2]hear from them again [the-sun.com].
[1] https://www.sacurrent.com/news/site-compiles-stories-of-outspoken-anti-vaxxers-including-texans-who-died-preventable-covid-deaths-27032679/
[2] https://www.the-sun.com/news/1524290/conspiracy-theorist-trump-supporter-dismissed-coronavirus-socialist-hoax-killed/
Re-education camps optional? (Score:1)
Do they have to complete their time in the re-education camp first or not?
Lack of rational discussion (Score:2, Insightful)
A large demographic has lost the ability to have a rational reasoned discussion of any topic or idea that that demographic group disagrees with.
Their reaction to someone with an idea differing from their own belief is to try to shut down any discussion, personally shame, attack or punish the holder of the different idea or opinion.
The common thread is that stopping any message which does not agree with their own.
This is without even discussing the opposing idea on the merits of the idea.
Common things from t
Re:Lack of rational discussion (Score:4, Insightful)
I’m not going to have a rational discussion with someone who doesn’t believe in vaccines or plays word games with vaccines and inoculations.
Re: (Score:2)
Agree. That's the "large demographic has lost the ability to have a rational reasoned discussion" part.
My point is about discussing with persons that have the capacity to hold a rational discussion a topic with data and facts and expertise to back up their viewpoint.
The point where experts in the field, licensed medical doctors in the infectious disease and immunology fields for example, being excluded from public discourse for asking for a fact based discussion, is the problem.
Less informed people, averag
Well... (Score:2)
... this thread really seems to be bringing the COVID-denying & misinformation fanatics out from under their rocks...
Re: (Score:1)
I know right? How many boosters did you get? I got 6.
It is a trap (Score:1)
Do not go back
Filtered due to preferences (Score:2)
Thought I'd just put it in the the title ... pretty funny, the over half of the posts so far are "Filtered due to preferences"
Discussion about censorship is censored? Oh, the irony.
Orwell will be disappointed.... (Score:2)
... you can't build a proper dystopian future like that....
Hopefully those banned will be forced to agree that Covid was the scariest thing ever, the Jab was perfectly safe and effective, and that Biden really had half the country behind him....
misplaced quotation marks (Score:3, Insightful)
Think you meant to say Youtube Opens Second Chance Program To Creators Banned for 'Misinformation.'
Since 'misinformation' means 'something said the government does not like' and not a meaning that would be suggested by the plain rules of English.
Re: (Score:2)
Oof....
Re: (Score:2)
Fascism: You're with it.
No misinformation means misinformation (Score:1, Flamebait)
Vaccines work and Trump lost 2020, well I don't want to say fair and square because Trump cheated his balls off in 2020 and still lost but his loss was legitimate. It's just that the cheating wasn't enough then.
Do you really think the billionaires are going to take care of you when you have outlived your usefulness following the next election?
Trump is on track for a third term. You have to know what that means for American politics and democracy.
How much longer do you think Trump is going to cat
Re: (Score:1)
> those vaccines have increased cancers by 75% - at least according to Vancouver General Hospital
Vancouver General Hospital (VGH) isn't directly stating a 75% increase in cancer cases but is preparing for a projected 75% rise in cancer deaths by 2050, as indicated by a September 2025 CBC News report on a new study in The Lancet. This trend is attributed to an aging and growing global and Canadian population, and healthcare systems need to prepare for the increased burden
Re: (Score:3)
Prove it. Which vaccines and what types of cancers? Is it localized to Vancouver? Sounds like a bigger secret than the Epstein files.
Re: (Score:3)
The 75% claim is so telling. It belies either a fundamental misunderstanding of whatever statistics were presented or it's a flat out malicious lie.
If you could prove a 10% cancer increase with causation or strong correlation you would actually get the attention of a lot of the medical field and probably would get whatever vaccine it is pulled but the lie has to sound scary, absurdly so.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't feed the trolls. He's trying to drain moderation points away so that the asshole that posted first about how the evil bad government is censoring misinformation can get their post modded up.
Never mind the fact that we all know it was anti-vaxxers and people claiming Biden stole the election falsely that YouTube pulled off their site and that they only did it because a lot of those people were putting YouTube at risk of being sued for liable by vaccine companies and the companies that build electio
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and what about channels such as one of mine that still has a community "warning" on it, simply because I made a video in which I suggested that the decision whether or not to get vaxxed should be an individual one, based on one's own risk profile and other factors. Apparently that was "medical misinformation". I refuse to take the "training" program required to remove that warning because that would be effectively accepting that I was in the wrong -- when I strongly believe I was not in the wrong a
Re: misplaced quotation marks (Score:3, Insightful)
Too bad the individual lives with society so a decision to not vaccinate yourself meant you were putting other people lives in danger much less yourself. There was and still is no reasons to not get vaccinated so entertaining the idea that there is a reasonable choice for each individual is completely misleading. Serial killers have principals, people who commit genocide have principals, so you are in great company if you think an unwavering belief in your principals makes you a man. All I can think about
Re: (Score:2)
Who said I wasn't vaxxed? I did get vaxxed because I crunched the numbers and weighed up the risks and uncertainties. At 68 years of age I figured I'd be better off being vaccinated, even if there were unforeseen risks associated with the vax that may surface ten years down the road. My point was that others may have different risk factors so for them the results may be different. It's about freedom of choice.
As for "putting others' lives in danger" -- we were all told that vaccination would protect
Re: misplaced quotation marks (Score:1)
In principle, a risk based assessment is reasonable and varies by individual. Covid vaccines thus far have had a 0.003% to 0.0005% adverse affect on people at least in Canada, so any risk based assessment means you should get vaccinated unless you have an underlining serious health issue. Getting vaccinated obviously protects you but not everyone can be vaccinated. That is why heard immunity is so important. My younger brother was diagnosed with leukemia when he was 16 so he cannot get vaccinations anymore
Re: misplaced quotation marks (Score:2)
That is abhorrent, and extremely irresponsible medical advice. You should get things like flu vaccines to reduce the spread of a highly infectious disease, so you don't miss work unexpectedly, AND to avoid other unpleasant side effects or complications. Not just based on your individual chances of being put in the dirt by the disease.
It's not rocket surgery. The entire U.S. military requires annual flu shots despite being very young and fit compared to the general population. They do it for force readiness.
Drink Bleach! RFuK says good for U! (Score:2)
"Bleach will cure Covid!" could flood hospitals during a pandemic, making a bad problem worse.
I don't mind if people off themselves quietly in the woods where nobody will find their body, but if they fuck with our hospitals than their mistake becomes MY problem, and that's where their freedom ends. It's yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
Re: misplaced quotation marks (Score:2)
> Since 'misinformation' means 'something said the government does not like'
How, the government has been in different hands for what, nine months now hasn't it?
So the government didn't recently change, what did? Oh, the President of the United States personally threatened and sued YouTube, who settled the bribe out of court by agreeing to ... ?
So, I'm sorry, can someone please explain which government is forcing Youtube to do something they don't want to? Which government coerced YouTube? It's blatantly obvious, Trump did.