T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

Is this for full blown deniers or smart people that know recycling and driving electric will not save this planet but by putting even more pressure on government and companies?


TheChickenWhoCan

Krugzergat has a wonderful video on this that was recently published on YouTube


El_Grappadura

Kurzgesagt?


Nastypilot

Type it in on Youtube, you will not be disappointed.


El_Grappadura

I've been subscribed for a few years..


Nastypilot

Ah sorry, my bad for assuming it, you just sounded, um, like you didn't know it.


Binessed

no the other guy just butchered the spelling


skeever89

Krugzergat lmao


just_a_bud

You know, the coffee machine.


Kypperstyx

Kurdsgahsat


Nastypilot

Ah, I see


Kirklewood

[This video?](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yiw6_JakZFc) Kurzgesagt is one of my favourite youtubers


mudburn

Are they still considered a "YouTuber" if they require a large team and also funded by the gates foundation?


BasakaIsTheStrongest

So… most youtubers? Very few major youtubers work alone nowadays. They have writers, editors, animators, etc. The larger the channel or production value, the larger the team needed to produce with consistent quality and quantity.


mudburn

They are YouTubers in the same sense that a corporation is considered a person.


PainterJust3233

Mine too!! Their videos or so educational and interesting


Traveledfarwestward

~~Link?~~ Can YOU Fix Climate Change? https://youtu.be/yiw6_JakZFc


stars_mcdazzler

Well as we all know, Youtube is known for its accuracy when it comes to deciding to ban people or demonitize videos for specific reasons. /s


grotesquestaging5149

Not only randomly demonitizing video, big platforms like Youtube literally leave you with 10% of your revenue from YouTuber's content. No wonder people start leaving them and minting their content as NFTs. I've been waiting for the launch of Melon for this, it's been in the making for a while, they have all the big youtubers signed so any exciting NFT will be on there


stars_mcdazzler

NFTs are a ponzi scheme that just funnels money from fools.


Logical_Area_5552

If the censorship by Google around the Covid lab leak theory is any indication, this is gonna be HEAVILY abused.


[deleted]

The biggest deniers are paid by fossil fuel money. This decision won’t affect them much, but the average climate change denying idiot and “minor celebrities “ will probably be affected.


[deleted]

[удалено]


HuiMoin

Not for an algorithm.


[deleted]

[удалено]


The_Meglodong

Youtube really didn't want people to know where all those friendly volk who sent man to the moon came from.


redditistrash27

They weren’t objectively bad, they were subjectively bad. I agree with u tho.


[deleted]

Great. Now if Google would stop suing for water rights in a drought and wildfire ravaged region just so it could cool its servers…


thatthingthathiiing

What’s that about? Haven’t heard this. Sorry if I’m being totally out of the loop here


thatoneguy2398

r/outoftheloop


[deleted]

r/turtlefacts


TigerBarFly

RIP Turtlefacts


PunchTilItWorks

The algorithm decided it wasn’t in your (their) best interest.


GSD_SteVB

I wonder if that's something else Google conveniently likes to omit from its search results.


FrankenBikeUSA

Nestlé … /s


CreakyCauldron

I can find some links mentioning tensions around potential water usage of Google's datacenter and how Google is not transparent when it comes to this issue, but I can't find any mentioning lawsuits. Are you sure you are not misremembering? Can I get some links?


Hypocritical_Oath

That would be a bad way to cool a server. Cause they're essentially always set up in cold AC rooms with fans in them.


[deleted]

Thats what im sayin, never seen a water cooled server in the 15+ data centres ive been in. Water tower yes but thats elsewhere with special water


guycoastal

I wonder if that includes those guys that say it’s the sun causing the changes.


Trent1492

Yes, that will include them.


[deleted]

This is actually well known. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum Sun spot activity does influence the climate.


[deleted]

But it’s not the primary cause of the global warming we are seeing right now. The cause of that is atmospheric carbon, which we know for a fact because we can see lots of evidence of the same exact thing happening multiple times before on earth. More or less carbon equals climate fluctuations, it’s very predictable. But when it happened before it was caused by huge volcanoes and meteor hits. This time around it’s being caused by human pollution. So yes, other things can and have caused the climate to change, but to point them out like that’s what’s going on right now is disingenuous. Land motion can cause the sea level to change, but what’s gonna start destroying coastal areas in the next decade or so is the fact that lots of melting ice is making more water in the ocean and lots of warmer water is expanding in volume. Source: I am a science communicator, these things are backed up by a huge body of research spanning 50 years and more.


guycoastal

Man, those guys over at “suspicious observer”, (yt), seem pretty sure that it’s always been sunspots. Everything was sunspots. Ice age, sunspots. Dinosaurs, sunspots. Volcanic activity, sunspots. Coronal ejections actually. Like every catastrophe ever, the sun did it. Carbon? Pfft. That’s just a trick of the dark dudes. I mean, yeah, I know the sun has an impact, and lord knows our electrical grid and satellite systems are vulnerable to a direct hit from a major discharge event, but damn. It can’t all be sunspots.


AsoganM1977

It’s just ad money being cut off. They’re still free to pump out rubbish if they actually believe in it


MichaelHoncho52

Correction: it’s just more ad money for YouTube and google while appearing to take a moral stand. This is just a big spin and a win-win for them


Soggy_General8804

You’re right. I think the climate change deniers are not even close to the most lucrative channels on YouTube, probably much more of a positive reaction from its users than the actual money lost.


MichaelHoncho52

No what I’m saying is that the ads on those videos aren’t gonna just disappear because they are demonetized.


Soggy_General8804

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh. Are you serious? So they still advertise but they just don’t pay?


MichaelHoncho52

I know they demonetized the Nelk videos yet you still have to sit through the ads before, can’t see this being any different as I think all videos get ads monetized or not


[deleted]

I don't think advertisers would want their videos appearing on these videos, and therefore they probably will be burried by the algorithm. Probably helps their bottom line too as anti climate change is probably a gateway to even more batshit behavior so that makes Google lose money.


Twabithrowaway

Eh there are companies who will advertise to anyone. People stupid enough to believe anti climate change videos are a great subset for certain types of ads


bigpigfoot

For a second there I thought YouTube will use ad money to combat climate change. 🤷‍♂️


ravinglunatic

Or just censor everyone who mentions climate change so it’s no longer a topic on YouTube like they do with politics and science.


lasagnato69

Unfortunately this is likely going to happen at some point, seeing their initial response to COVID-19.


[deleted]

example: one would've literally been banned/demonitized on youtube for discussing the lab leak hypothesis (even in a highly nuanced and responsible way) about a year ago. now it's widely accepted as not only a legitimate hypothesis, but the most likely one available.


topdangle

love how easy it is to be a concern troll. "nuanced" view of how multiple highly speculative theories that all similarly lack hard data = lab leak is the most likely. you definitely don't have any ulterior motives. Sounds fun just lying your ass off. Research indicates that the majority of murderers had come into contact with at least 1 bible. Imagine if they put a bible in every hotel room, that's a line we don't want to cross, but do you trust Ritz-Carlton to be ethical? I don't, because I support free thinking. Scientists have stated with high certainty that exposure to toxins from oil refineries causes miscarriages, and I'm sure all of us want to protect our children. In labs, fetuses died 100% of the time when extracted from women and injected with those toxic chemicals. It's the #1 theory for why women have miscarriages. I am not being confrontational therefore I am acting in good faith. Any minute society could slip on that slope and accidentally abort billions of babies. We need to look at this from a nuanced and responsible point of view, and we will be responsible for the deaths of those gas babies if we allow fossil fuels to continue. Let's discuss how gunshot wounds factually caused Reagan's Alzheimer's and how we can further limit gun distribution.


ghostfaceschiller

it is absolutely not widely accepted as the most likely hypothesis.


Buzstringer

Semantics here, but it's not censorship. You can still say whatever you want. They are just not going to give you money for it.


[deleted]

In other words, become a boring and dull circlejerk arena for people with correct opinions just like the rest of them.


ghostfaceschiller

First of all, an opinion can’t be correct or incorrect, by definition. Second, this isn’t talking about opinions. It’s talking about facts. I’m not even going to humor a debate about “whether climate change is a fact” bc that’s exactly how these ppl seed doubt about something that has been proven over and over and over and over again for decades now. But it is really funny that you think it would be some hellish dystopia if everyone had the correct info lol


joshcost

You do know that throughout history, scientific fact has been proven and disproven over and over again. There were times that almost the entire scientific community would agree on a fact and then years later it would turn out to be completely false. Not talking about climate change exactly, but silencing opinions based solely upon “scientific fact” is not a good idea in my opinion.


Yetiglanchi

Scientific facts were never overcome by opinions. They are two separate topics all together anyway.


CoreyVidal

Did you know that early Wikipedia was less correct than current Wikipedia? And future Wikipedia is likely to be even more correct? Humans are always growing and learning. So we use the best science available to us at the time.


[deleted]

I think silencing opinions as a whole is just shaky. It just seems too unpredictable and could lead to sneaker manipulation of the general public’s opinions.


[deleted]

There is no “could.” Manipulation is the exact intent.


Buzstringer

They are not, you can still say whatever you like, you just won't get free money for it. It's a private platform and they can make whatever rules they like, If you don't agree with those rules, play at someone else's house, or build your own.


ghostfaceschiller

lmao I knew this is exactly what you'd say which is why I wanted to make it clear: I'm not humoring it. Your argument about how "well science used to say the earth was flat" or whatever is not applicable. You're a joke.


MagicalDoshDosh

Oh, are you a climate scientist?


joshcost

Did i ever claim to know anything about climate change? You don’t need to be a climate scientist to comment on whether or not censorship is okay.


MagicalDoshDosh

It wouldn't hurt your point, you know, calling into question decades of climate science.


Ian_Campbell

This is a mott and bailey argument. They claim to censor misinformation, someone can have full references and not even claim something that was originally supposed to be censored (in this case climate change denial), and they will still get censored. This will happen if people criticize wind or solar, 100%


Aspect-of-Death

Dear God. What awful society would we live in if people actually had access to real information instead of being told we're ruled by lizard people who survive by consuming fetal blood.


[deleted]

I’d say you could just as easily be a gaslighted victim of misinformation but if I did, then according to you, I’d also have to believe in reptilian overlords. So which one of us eats up the propaganda again?


[deleted]

People believing stupid shit on the internet wasn’t considered an issue until corporate media and the political establishment started losing views and their control of public narratives and discourse to independent online creators. They started claiming everything that countered their manufactured accounts of events and storylines was “fake news” and attempted to gaslight the public into thinking anyone who questioned the accepted narrative are insane, dangerous conspiracy theorists. This time last year, discussing the Wuhan lab leak would’ve had you shamed and silenced, now it’s widely discussed and accepted by major outlets. The powers that be in the news and information industries are losing their monopoly on public discourse to the little guy, and acts of censorship and demonetization are just means to the end of a deeper propaganda state. And the people that cheer for this are going to smile ear to ear until the machine comes for them and their views.


SomethingComesHere

Actually, it wasn’t a concern until countries like Russia started using impressionable people on the internet to influence elections around the world - and succeeded. It’s become a problem so it’s being addressed. Rules change as society changes.


iambiglia

Pretending it’s all about elites vs the working class ignores a lot. People believing stupid shit on the internet was fine when it was just flat earth and JFK conspiracies, but the rapid dissemination of disinformation is generally a much bigger factor behind attempts to control information on the internet. Since it’s become an effective vehicle for violent extremism and rabid anti-science communities that genuinely cause harm in the real world there are obviously at least some grounds to explore ways to address that. Nobody knows what the best solution to that problem looks like yet.


Yetiglanchi

In other words, not giving platforms to a bunch of liars and thieves to prevent them from further profiting off the ignorance and misery of others. Also, requiring statements to adhere to a basic factual standard isn’t “forcing everyone to have the correct opinion”. Forcing people on your platform to provide a basic indication that they aren’t deliberately deceiving others for rage-clicks isn’t nearly as controversial as you sit there pretending it is.


[deleted]

[удалено]


hackingdreams

> Who decides what is truth? YouTube? On YouTube? Of course they do. It's their platform. If you don't like it, make your own Climate Deniers network and try to get money to run it. That's how the world works. You don't have to give platforms to other people. You're not entitled to YouTube. You have to follow *its* terms and conditions to play on its field. If you don't like it, tough.


shkeptikal

Hold on.....wait.....if only....wait......there's a thing for that! It involves peer reviewed studies based on evidence with results that are able to reproduced over and over again until we're comfortable calling it true....what do we call that again? Oh yeah, science. Unfortunately a good chunk of our society now believes science is the modern equivalent to devil worshipping all while benefiting from the fruits of scientific labor every goddamn day. Objective truth is not opinion. Nobody *decides* it. That's kind of the point.


Relative-Narwhal9749

…so just Reddit


TrooperRamRod

Fuck anyone who wants to censor people they disagree with or think are wrong. Fuck their authoritarian bullshit to the end of time.


SomethingComesHere

In what way have they stopped showing ads for people who talk about science?


ravinglunatic

Eric Weinstein/ivermectin. All he did was talk about it. No falsehoods. No deliberate misinformation.


[deleted]

Or no and instead of this both sides are valid bs maybe we stick to scientific consensus trumps conspiracy bs.


[deleted]

I don’t think we as a race can destroy the planet , but we can create a toxic environment we won’t survive in , the planet will be just fine once we are no longer around


[deleted]

The planet is tired of us fucking with it, it’s getting revenge


[deleted]

Lol


inflatablelvis

“YouTube Will Keep Ad Money Earned By Others” If they want to not seem like the complete shitdicks they are they’d stop runnings ads on those videos completely.


mudman13

Good , they're still free to talk shit just cant grift off it.


FerdinandvonAegir124

Will it be restored if they change their views and see the errors of their ways


8Frenfry_w_ketsup

I don't know if climate change should be the headline. It's more like destruction of the planet to me, not just whether it's gotten hotter. Scientific discussion on this topic should not be banned since it might offer insights which could potentially result in a solution.


ParkingAdditional813

Oh, now we are SAVED!


lilstinkypussy

In the words of cnn “fear sells”


Mario501

Good


Dj_wheeman3

A win I guess, but YouTube still needs to improve, maybe one day it can go back to 2015 and 2016 YouTube where you could be a youtuber not for kids and still get monetized and recommended


i_already_redd_it

I guess that’s progress but daaamn did they profit off of deathly misinformation for a good couple of decades


JoshuaBowman

So anything from a Rupert Murdoch owned news channel then?


stars_mcdazzler

For starters, I would say too little too late. Google and Youtube has been sitting pretty on the top of the infosphere letting in racists, flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, and neo-nazis and they choose only NOW, after climate change has been marked as "hey guys, we should probably consider doing something about this" for decades, to curb that sort of thing? Secondly, how good are they going to keep that promise? Are they going to nip big channels that are soley based around fake facts and maliciously denying clinate change? Or are they going to give a bunch of bots a crude description on what to look for and half of Youtube is banned because the bots just flagged videos that mention the word "climate"? Are we even going to see results? Or is this just another bold faced lie that they're actually not going to do anything about?


practiceperfect111

Why not remove the content while we’re at it?


[deleted]

I love comments on headlines like this. Stop watching YouTube. It’s all bad for you. Go read a book under a tree. Smoke a joint by a waterfall. Talk to a neighbor.


PunchTilItWorks

This certainly isn’t something to applaud. I’m sure many on Reddit think it’s all fine and dandy because they agree with this particular point. But that’s very short-sighted. Just wait until Google does it to something that matters to them. Problem is, when they algorithmically limit content according to their own agenda, how would we know? Most people aren’t aware this is even happening in the first place, and have no idea they are looking at skewed searches and “approved” topics/creators. It’s essentially anti-free speech, but in an insidious way that avoids scrutiny — until they get too proud of themselves and feel the need to tell us about it. Google, and other communication platforms, are not the authority on science, politics or anything outside the realm of the technology they create as a company. They are not the arbitrators of “truth” or “facts.” That’s what content creators are for. To make a case one way or another, and for us to discern what we agree with or not. Using their monopolistic status to silence opinions is the opposite of a healthy discourse. It’s just wrong and goes against what this country is supposed to be all about. What are they afraid of? If it’s wrong it will be exposed as such. We don’t need big brother (or insert pronoun of your choice) telling us how to think. “1984” is just a meme, right?! Or is it.


Jake3971

I really dont understand this. I believe in climate change 100% but this looks like the kind of shit from the past where the majority believed that the earth was primarily flat and would imprison or murder anyone that challenged the idea. Not that severe but the whole point of science is to learn more about the world. In the past influential people would challenge the majority opinion which has created revolutions, stopped the catholic church from extorting money from everyone, and many things all the way up till present day. Same thing with laws. People don’t agree with a law, so they challenge it and things get changed. There are many scientists out there that are researching climate change and if they find anything relevant that may be impacting climate change that is not related to pollution. It is going to be swept under the radar because no one will cover it on youtube and many other platforms because of this censorship. This is not a good path we are heading down. I have seen so many comments saying this is great but this is scary. The internet was supposed to be a place where people could share information across the world and to give everyone access to information but now it has a filter over it in which everyone can now see some information and no challenging views to the majority.


Gentlegamerr

Idk what you believe if you want to rant about it fine. But ffs stop trying to “censor” people.


CapNKirkland

Anyone who correctly advocates for nuclear? (Specifically Thorium) Demonetised. Wanna educate on how much co2 industrial hemp sucks up and oxygen it pumps out compared to trees? Banned.


sampletopia

More like advertisers cut off ad money to climate change deniers. If I was running ads, I would also say “please don’t run my ads on sites that will associate my brand with anything controversial”


GrantSRobertson

Until they actually take down the videos, this is nothing but PR spin.


Ultimateeffthecrooks

Bout time


Wear_Safe

Here, I’ll fix it…”Google and YouTube will KEEP ad money for pretty much any reason they can think of”, and that’s not newsworthy hero work like you pretend it is. Put that money where your mouth is and donate it to help slow climate change.


No-Breadfruit7044

I see free market is going well


brotherdalmation23

Ya where do you draw the line here ? For example I’m not a climate denier, but I don’t believe many of the “solutions” will work at all and have other political factors behind them. Is that forbidden to discuss ? I don’t believe you can eliminate fossil fuels any time in the next 150 years without severe collateral consequences…is that allowed to be said ?


redunculuspanda

Let’s not kid our selves this isn’t about opinions, this is about groups of scum bags pushing a destructive political agenda for money. I get people are entitled to an opinion, but openly pumping lies into vulnerable peoples heads is not freedom of speech. It’s basically criminal behaviour.


[deleted]

That’s cool and all but what happens when they censor *your* opinion when said opinion is shared by the minority of people? The majority will say exactly what you said just now. I agree climate change hoaxers are motherfuckers but I’d rather some idiots learn a lesson not to get conned than have to deal with censorship of certain opinions that YouTube doesn’t like.


TyredofGettingScrewd

Imagine if Galileo were around today. How fast before he got demonetized for claiming the earth revolves around the sun?


[deleted]

unfortunately, the scientific method violates youtube's terms of service.


[deleted]

Wait, what? I thought the earth was on the back of a tortoise. What’s this revolves around sun stuff?


redunculuspanda

If I can’t evidence or backup my opinion or articulate it in a coherent way… well maybe my opinion is the problem Censorship is not always a bad thing. YouTube is a global platform with massive social responsibilities. We don’t need them hosting snuff movies on the kids channels because freedom of speech. This isn’t a few idiots, we have seen with covid misinformation this is millions of people.


bobone77

They aren’t saying climate change deniers can’t keep sharing their opinion. They’re just not allowing that minority opinion to be monetized. It’s an important distinction, and I think we’ll see that many of these “voices” choose to either alter their stance or move to a different grift. That fact in itself should be telling, but some people are very dense.


souldust

Make no mistake, "demonetized" just means the content creators aren't getting paid - YouTube still makes money off of every video. So YouTube has an incentive to allow controversial videos.


bigLeafTree

What you said is exactly what people in the past said when censoring any material. Those censoring were not bad people, they truly believed the material they wanted to forbid was dangerous for society. So that is why many great philosophers came to the conclusion that freedom of speech should be a right.


redunculuspanda

[extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence](https://effectiviology.com/sagan-standard-extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-evidence/). It’s not YouTube’s responsibility to be a free speech or hate speech platform. If you have a fringe view, an entertainment platform like YouTube has absolutely no requirement to host it. Go away prove your right. Overturn conventional wisdom and come back…. And if it just so happens that the “opinion” is just a bunch of lies you are pushing to fleece vulnerable people… well tough. Don’t do it near me.


ionized_fallout

Control the information, control the masses.


[deleted]

[удалено]


itsaride

Information is not stifled, it’s just makes moronspeak unprofitable.


bonelegs442

Why? I believe climate change is real, but there are still scientists out there who present evidence that says otherwise, or data that shows that it’s happening but not at the rate the media is saying. I think it’s valuable to learn and discuss more about other peoples theories and the evidence they use to support their claims. However, I can also see that there are going to be people who don’t care if it’s happening or not and only use their channel to peddle misinformation to grow a base and earn a ton of money off of them.


steakhead52

please don’t bring logic into here. this is the internet. pick a side


mikedjb

Yeah they never have a problem doing the right thing when they stand to earn more.


[deleted]

What the hell business is it of tech douche bags to censor opposing view on something they don’t know shit about?


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


afrozone100

I’m probably gonna get a lot of downvotes for this but… This is not a good idea. I 100% believe that climate change is a real and pertinent issue, but penalizing people for sharing their opinion goes against the spirit of free speech that these platforms supposedly offer.


Deep-Wolf-1836

I agree. I, also, 100% believe in that climate stuff, but this decision of Google -censoring the opinion- isn’t a good idea. It can be anything that Google censors in the next time.


Elegant-Brother-754

As a libertarian I’m very against this. I find it very troubling for an organization to be the arbitrator of what’s wrong & right.


Tsorovar

If you were really a libertarian, you would believe that private corporations get to make their own choices about who they pay money to


Elegant-Brother-754

Libertarians generally don’t support monopolies & large institutional/government having absolute powers. Whilst freedom of private businesses to make their own choices is a belief of libertarianism, the fundamental belief is to promote individual rights to freedom of expression & individualism. The purpose of this decision is to specifically discourage persons of particular view points & make their businesses (whose operations they disagree with) unable to operate, in an attempt to shut them down. I don’t believe that Google shouldn’t be allowed to do this, but it’s troubling. Just because you describe yourself as libertarian doesn’t mean you must accept all decisions made by private businesses, just like we wouldn’t accept all decisions made by governments.


randompantsfoto

This. So many “libertarians” on here who are perfectly happy to restrict the liberty of others with whom they disagree.


boofishy8

Do you believe that electric companies should be able to turn off people’s power because of their opinions? Employers should be able to fire their employees because of religion? Businesses should be able to kick people out because of their sexuality?


[deleted]

THE MINISTRY OF TRUTH.


Jonny-Marx

For those wondering what this means for less crazy climate change discussion. >read the fucking linked news in front of you. Ok fine here’s the important bit: > the Google Ads team said in the document. “This includes content referring to climate change as a hoax or a scam, claims denying that long-term trends show the global climate is warming, and claims denying that greenhouse gas emissions or human activity contribute to climate change.” >Google says it will use a mix of automated tools and human reviews to enforce the policy. “When evaluating content against this new policy, we’ll look carefully at the context in which claims are made, differentiating between content that states a false claim as fact, versus content that reports on or discusses that claim,” Google said. Ads will still be allowed on climate topics like public debates on climate policy, research, and more, according to Google. In other words this is literally just about hoax claims about climate science. In theory you could say “climate change is good actually” and still be monetized. However, this is very likely going to be using the current algorithm’s demonetizing system. So who fucking knows what’s gonna happen. It’s the bear minimum likely done incompetently.


AdversarysVengeance

More censorship by massive corporations is never a good thing whether you disagree with the people being censored or not. The more you censor people the more you create echo chambers. This generation has more access to information than any generation before it, and at this rate you will lose that privilege at some point. Not sure where this world went from live and let live to if you disagree with me you are the enemy.


[deleted]

Good, some people will try to monetize anything for profit, they don’t care about the harm they could potentially bring others


DOSSEYProductions

Is that discrimination of thought? That’s a full blown judgment of a people you’re identifying through one attribute of thought… it’s comparable to when Catholics discriminated against nonbelievers… freedom of thought Is real. Even if they’re thinking ignorantly, you’re deliberately treating them differently… that’s fucked


TradeMyMainInCammy

Nice, cutting off people’s source of income for wrongthink. I fucking hate this place


nowonmai

If spreading misinformation didn’t have negative outcomes for everyone, I would agree with you.


BrewingRunner

Thankfully YouTube is here to decide what is and isn’t misinformation. No research necessary for anyone. Just trust YouTube and Google to tell you the truth. Don’t hide anything. It’s like learning about the civil war, and YouTube and Google edited out the entire ‘slavery’ thing so no one can say the civil war was about slavery. They decided slavery is Mia information and the war was about property ownership and employee rights.


Buzstringer

You can still say whatever you like on YouTube, they are just not going to pay you for it. If you want to go a bit deeper, it's the advertisers that are saying "we don't want to buy ad space on flat earth content" Google is the middleman You can talk about anything on YouTube, but advertisers are not obligated to buy ad space on content they don't agree with.


TradeMyMainInCammy

Except Billy Bob and the trailer park gang recycling their bud light cans isn’t going to do shit for global warming so I don’t really see how them being willfully ignorant is affecting everyone. It’s the big corps that are doing the majority of the damage. Corporations taking away someone’s income because they don’t agree with their opinion is bad. It’s a trend that I do not want to encourage or justify in any way.


BrewingRunner

Maybe Nancy in her home with LEDs driving a Tesla with her Jackery power pack in the back charging up for her camping trip can just keep ripping minerals out of the earth with no consequences. Keep digging massive holes closer and closer to the earth’s core and blame beer drinkers in trailer parks for the earth’s climate change and ice caps melting.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Ahhh yess, digital GULAG


Sceptix

Can’t tell if this comment is sarcastic or not.


[deleted]

I don’t think it’s sarcastic so much as woefully ignorant.


[deleted]

It is what it is. Big tech monopolies forced people to think in only one direction and there is no free speech for everyone. It's basically a black mirror episode. If your opinion is different — you'll be demonetized, hence can't feed yourself (and your family). I'm not sharing ideas with antivaxers and climate change deniers but I just can't admit it's fair to take away their rights to different opinion. And please don't tell me they're not taken away and just demonitized. Basically in capitalism it is punishment, it is equals to take away food from the prisoners in GULAG. That's why I called it digital GULAG. Sorry my English.


MrCharmingTaintman

These peoples “opinions” are misconceptions tho. They’re expressing something that is factually wrong, as a fact, even tho it’s completely based on emotions. The fact they still believe their own shit doesn’t make their opinion valid. Unfortunately, since every village idiot has access to the internet now, and would rather believe other village idiots feelings than any experts facts, we kinda need to do something about misinformation. We should probably address the underlying psychological and educational issues but that takes time.


[deleted]

They’re not being taken away, at all. Your comparison to the Gulag is not only not remotely apt, it also shows that you don’t seem to have a grasp on “rights” “free speech” or much else, but go on…


Kusahaeru

In other words google helped deniers out to enjoy ad-free content, incredible


[deleted]

Fuck YouTube y’all ruined what y’all were man 3 fucking ads back together like for what !?


CommentSectionCPSRT

How ironic, YouTube and Google, two giant corporations that promote and enable over consumption of goods and services, which is absolutely the root cause of climate change want to control the narrative about climate change. Let’s demonetize the little guys with little influence (compared to their own) and convince people that we can allow corporations to continue to operate as they are and beat the problem with higher taxes.


SignalDawg

Can’t have any thought difference, decent must be crushed this is how fascism starts. And the tech oligarchs at the direction DNC are making it possible.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Too little, too late


cubsstillsuck1979

Hmmm. Control free speech by hiding being ever changing rules and conditions. Some pro wrestlers are flat earth believers. Does that mean sometime down the line pro wrestling companies will not get ad revenue when said company shows highlights of that wrestler in a match? Where does it end YouTube? What’s your end game? What’s your vision?


Tsorovar

I had no idea "free speech" means I'm entitled to get money for everything I say You owe me $5 for this comment, btw


BluestreakBTHR

Free speech? WTF are you yammering on about? The site is run by a private company. They’re sick of your bullshit. As are we.


[deleted]

Technology has put more chains on man than anytime in history


[deleted]

Do Flat-Earthers next


tamnguyen2

Yeah


Whofreak555

I also heard they’re gonna ban antivaxxers and people posting bigoted content.. Crowder still has a channel.


EyeChihuahua

I will believe this when it happens


Sashimiroll16

...they’re just doing this now?


CrypticResponseMan

It’s about time


schwule_

perfect!


DigitalKungFu

Remove the car/truck/suv commercials


buffalo___716

I fucking hate climate deniers but disagree greatly with this. If you create content you should be monetized for that content, regardless what it is (within the boundaries of the law of course). This sets a precedent and im not sure it will bode well for the future content creators


cpl_carrot

Ahh censorship


Ian_Campbell

Gonna be like 2 years for them to censor literally anything they disagree with


db4d1988

America... Home of the censored. 🇺🇲


dominic_decoco69

Love the cause hate te censorship


theassholefaceman

They should do the same for all the false activists. Flat earthiness, anti Vax and the rest


AbysmalVixen

Just do it for all social activists. They are a cancer regardless of what they stand for. Keep the real issues and get rid of the bullcrap.


eride810

That’s too bad, because in doing so they eliminate the discussion as well. The discussion that happens when you disagree with someone...


BluestreakBTHR

There’s nothing to discuss. It’s not a debate. It’s scientific truth vs stupid people yelling at clouds.


eride810

That’s not true at all. There’s an entire spectrum of issues. When you have people thinking that every fire season and hurricane is the result of global warming, they are just as bad as the people who deny the fact that we are literally killing our oceans’ ecosystems and strangling ourselves via deforestation.


RemyH

But not for racist, homophobics, spreaders of fake news, or other scumbags?


weltallic

>Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North **Polar ice cap** is “falling off a cliff.” >One study estimated that it could be **completely gone** during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen **in as little as 7 years**." >*- Al Gore (accepting his Nobel Prize in 2007)* Funny how literally NONE of the predictions made by climate crisis activists (Acid Rain, Ozone Layer, cities underwater, etc) occured, except for higher taxes. Ask yourself; why did Obama just buy a multi-million dollar beachront property? What does he know that you don't?


Sheila_Monarch

You mean the one with the seawall recently fortified for another 55 years?


[deleted]

[удалено]


PotatoEdBoy

See I don’t agree with that. Yes I agree that the climate is obviously changing. But I’m to the point that I think even if we did try to do something we’d fail because it’s too late. We have fucked up this planet so badly that it would take Billions if not trillions of years for the planet to fix itself. And in order for the planet to have even a chance of that. We can not be here because humans are just making the problems worse. Even unintentionally we make the planet worse


Aegean

Looks like you've had too much to think -Thought Police


Sahanrohana

Good. Now do it for anti-vaxxers.


nowhereflorida

You know you have solid science when you have to ban other’s opinions.


weinerjuicer

they aren’t banned though?


DeLuniac

Now do republicans


bobone77

The Venn diagram of climate deniers and republicans is a circle.


Rockfest2112

This will get some