How Censorship Changed

Go to www.keeps.com/... to get 50% off your first three months! Thanks to Keeps for sponsoring this video!
Censorship: More complicated than "Don't yell 'fire" in a crowded theater."
In America, we tend to pay a lot of lip service to the idea of "free speech." And yet censorship still exists. But what does it really mean to censor speech, and what are the implications on us as people and as a society? Let's find out in this Wisecrack Edition on How Censorship Changed.
Subscribe to Wisecrack! ► wscrk.com/SbscrbWC
Support us on Patreon! ► wscrk.com/32Q7huu
Check out our Merch Store! ► wisecrack.store/
=== Watch More Episodes! ===
How Fahrenheit 451 Predicted Fake News ► wscrk.com/F451HDH
The Truth about Unbiased News ► wscrk.com/2L3w18x
How Privacy Changed ► wscrk.com/3bsqNiI
Written by: Jeanette Moreland
Hosted by: Michael Burns
Directed by: Michael Luxemberg
Motion Graphics & by: Jackson Maher
Editing & Additional Animation by: Henry Camacho
Video Title Card by: Amanda Murphy
Produced by: Evan Yee
#censorship #fakenews
© 2020 Wisecrack / Omnia Media, Inc.

[@jorgeluz9560]

You know your generation is really getting old when your media starts advertising hair loss products.

[@Joetorres3]

Well... to be honest my brother is 15 years younger than me an he have hair loss... so I guess is a ageless problem

[@daniellion5291]

Id rather be bald than have to run up hill for the rest of my life.

[@gil5885]

i'm a senior in high school and some of my classmates hairlines are looking a little shaky. so maybe you're not all that old.

[@warriorscholar41]

Hell, I'm not even 35, and my hairline has been receding for years.

[@waszyrowski]

who you calling old, baldie shamer! /s

[@PeterHSPeter]

People love applauding censorship when it's their opponents being censored.

[@tonylawson2222]

People care more about results than ideas like morality or free speech.

[@glitchygear9453]

@@tonylawson2222 Such a foolish way to look at the world. The end result is not the only thing that matters. The means by which the result is achieved matter just as much, if not more than, the result itself. If you do something horrible in order to achieve something good, congratulations, you've done something horrible and deserve to be punished for it. The ends do not justify the means!

[@bnice1374]

@@glitchygear9453 And yet we have war, the death sentence, cancel culture, abortion.... (just so you know I am not saying I am against any of these, I just point out things people could point out as bad) I could go on but I think you understand my point. Saying that doing something bad to achieve something good is immoral, is simply not an ideal we can uphold. It is not how the world works, nor how it will ever work; no matter how much we would want it. This is not because there are no other options but, rather stems from our idea of what is or isn't right. We like to think that our ideas are right and everyone else should think the same as we do. But right and wrong is simply not something you can define based on your own ideals. Something we find horrible might be absolutely normal on the other side of the world. Hell it might even be okay with most of our neighbours. Forcing them to uphold to our ideals is just as bad and in many ways censorship in it's own right. As a matter of fact I would call that fascist.

[@glitchygear9453]

@@bnice1374 You sound like a moral relativist. You seem to believe that morality is a human construct, and that what one person considers moral is just as valid as another. I disagree. I believe that morality exists independently of humanity, and that there is a "true" morality that is simply objective. The funny thing is, I actually agree that forcing your ideals onto others is OFTEN, albeit NOT always, a very bad thing. No one man knows everything. We are all flawed, we all fail, we are all ignorant of something. You simply cannot determine what's best for everyone in every situation by your lonesome. So, pushing your idea of what's best for others onto them very often (albeit not always) leads to something which is in fact not best for them. The thing is, just because something is considered okay by some other country, or okay by your neighbors, does not therefore make it okay. Even if everyone alive considered murder okay, does that therefore make murder okay? But if you apply this logic to other people you need to apply it to yourself. Just because YOU believe something is okay, does that make it okay? Personally, I'm always open to the idea that my ideals are flawed and imperfect, and I refine my view of morality every now and then. I'm an imperfect person, as we all are, and I constantly grow and change. If I PERSONALLY did something wrong, in order to achieve something good, that would still be doing something wrong, even if I didn't believe it to be wrong. Morality is objective, not subjective, and I can't magically erase the truth. On a side note, I personally don't understand the people who say war is a universal bad. Defense of self and defense of others often requires force, and so long as it's not an excessive level of force, it's morally justified. For example, take the war against the Nazi regime. Is every war justified? No. Not even close. A lot of wars began to "help people" do more damage than good. But war in and of itself is not inherently bad.

[@bnice1374]

@@glitchygear9453 I partially agree with you. I however, don't think that there is such a thing as "true" morality. You have to consider that we as self aware beings consider things to be wrong, that were never intended to be wrong by nature. It is the manner in which we evolved that created the very fabric of morality. We where/are dependent on one another and thus empathy became important for human beings as a whole. Under different condition that may not have been the case. I'm not saying I disagree with you on things such as murder, pedophilia or anything else that you could possibly think of as horrible. Because to me they are but, even that comes from our dependency on empathy. Take for example your beliefs on war and it not being inherently evil. You are looking at that from your point of view. I agree the nazi regime was horrible and I am glad they lost that war. In other words, they where the evil that had to go, from my point of view. However, many Germans at the time thought the exact opposite. Thinking we where the evil that needed to go. Sure you could say that we weren't putting up death camps and executing innocent people. But than I could easily say well Vietnam.. Sure different times but that doesn't make the US any better. Even if you look at more recent wars and political power struggles like the ones in the middle east. To many of the people there the US is the country that has invaded their home. Forced them to leave their country. But from our point of view we are stopping terrorism. Yes they did horrible things and what exactly caused those attacks where event's a 100 years in the making. But the war that followed only caused more death and destruction. Again I'm not saying war is inherently evil, I am simply saying that there are two sides to the coin. Me personally, I look at the reasons behind everything before I decide what is or is not immoral. Take for example child labour, an absolutely horrible thing that should not be okay. However, than you do your research you find out that often the kids that are working, are doing so because their parent(s) died, is/are terminally ill or the parent(s) simply can't earn a enough money to put food on the table; and the reason these kids have to work is because they have to take care of their family. Sure that doesn't make it right and there should be a system for those situations. But when such a system isn't there, who am I to say that these practises are wrong. Again to clarify, I do think they are wrong. Every child deserves a childhood and should be encouraged to follow an education. I simply mean to say that I understand the situation and I don't fault them for it. Well damn, I think that was enough book writing for one day. Let's just agree to disagree, I do respect your views and I would probably agree with most of your views if we would get into what is or isn't wrong. Though when it comes down to how we determine why they are what they are. Well lets just say I simply have a different take on life. All the best to you my friend

[@alexrossouw7702]

I'm going to buy a yacht and call it The Censor and it will be my censorship

[@alexsmith2910]

That was a unique joke. I will upvote it. In this sea of unoriginal youtube comments, you have cause me to giggle a little. In short, lol.

[@thulyblu5486]

I'm going to buy a fossilized hip from a centaur and it will be my centaurship

[@thulyblu5486]

I'm going to worship God in my own version of Zen called Cen (plural Cens) and it will be my Censworship I'm going to buy my own pirate ship with blackjack and hookers offering services for one cent and it will be my centwhoreship

[@Jaspertine]

Boooooo! Ban this joke. Remove it from the platform!

[@dianeridley9804]

Some will call it a censorboat, so be careful

[@rhaegartargaryen9315]

“Free speech for me but not for thee.”

[@crussteasock4047]

Rules for thee, not for me

[@deankruse2891]

Facts vs cynical lying

[@MrGamelover23]

@@deankruse2891 more like cyclical lying.

[@mistertroll4107]

Thats such a stupid argument people made. Its so irrelevant.

[@dbojangles1597]

@@deankruse2891 Only fools actually think that they have a monopoly on the truth. Cynical propagandists on the other hand will claim such in order to control public opinion.

[@DagothDaddy]

why did you change the title of Mauler's video but keep his channel un blurred? Are you purposely trying to misrepresent him in order to make your point?

[@vinnym8461]

Yes, yes they are.

[@DagothDaddy]

@@vinnym8461 wise crack have always been shit,but even I never expected them to stoop to the level of showing someone's video and channel but changing the title to misrepresent it

[@m0rthaus]

Clearly he blurred the other two video thumbnails as they had images of the authors faces on them. The titles were all replaced. The author's avatars were attempted to be hidden too. All seems to be an attempt to anonymize them as they were used as 'generic angry TLJ reviews' - but I'll admit he could have done a better job finding other examples. Honestly seems like a weird component of the video to fixate on and white-knight over - nobody is personally being intentionally misrepresented, as these are intended to be generic.

[@Lucaintheninjatank]

@@m0rthaus Okay but the context of what they are saying seems incredibly bitter towards the people who made videos critiquing The Last Jedi and the fact they left one guy in particulars thumbnail and channel icon unblurred while also changing the title to something that horribly misrepresents the video speaks to something a bit more deliberate.

[@OldPanther]

@@m0rthaus They used image editing to change the title of someone's video. That is very deliberate and malicious.

[@fullyimmersed8578]

Mark Zuckerberg looks like a giant alien worm in a human skin suit.

[@ericgan7742]

u mean a human in a giant aliem worm suit

[@holmholmsen4158]

Serious Men in Black vibes.

[@michaelm3691]

I, for one, welcome our new Zuckerbergian lizard-overlord.

[@Qvmmy]

he try to top everybody with his lovecraft cosplay

[@GAndreC]

Looks more reptilian than wormlike though

[@ChaseFace]

Nice job misrepresenting MauLer's video in a video about censorship. Palpatine "Ironic" .gif goes here.

[@TheBlujy]

We gonna be seeing this vid in a future EFAP? I sure hope so.

[@Gackt4awesome]

nah, it was quite accurate. Mauler's video is a manchild throwing a temper tantrum over a franchise that Lucas ruined back in 1999. Making an 8 hour video on a 2.5 hour movie misses the point of what RedletterMedia reviews are about. Mauler is just too brainwashed over Lucas's interpretation of Star Wars despite all the major fundamental problems in the Prequel era.

[@TheBlujy]

@@Gackt4awesome you ever watched one of his vids man?

[@TheBlujy]

@UCC-5tOw0xsk7ZlnRDRDDAaQ yeah that’s fair. It’d definitely be fun to hear them rip the shit out of em about it tho lol.

[@orenalbertmeisel3127]

@@TheBlujy they should definitely briefly mention it during the next stream, but the video isn’t really fit for EFAP coverage if you ask me. The video is too political, and EFAP is more about bad video essays concerning games, movies and similar

[@damocles7406]

Talks about how censorship is bad. Proceeds to change the title of a certain long man's video at 13:22 to misrepresent it. Glorious.

[@telltellyn]

You didn't actually watch the video did you.

[@fatespartan8893]

@@telltellyn I'm confused I'm sure we all saw the same video?

[@telltellyn]

@@fatespartan8893 Then how miss the point? They spell it out multiple times, couldn't have been much more clear. Video is about how censorship exists inevitably and is a common aspect of discourse that goes unnoticed, because rather than just being good or bad it's better thought of as a spectrum that covers what's within current public acceptance.

[@klaussone]

@@telltellyn Which in itself is a stupid position to put your argument in. Since you are then forced to accept that is right or wrong, relatively within the confines of such spectrum. Which in turn explains why is currently viewed as wrong. And thus coming full circle to acknowledge that is reasonable to be considered wrong on todays zeitgeist. Edit: this also makes the tactics employed dishonest. Since they are still misrepresenting in favour a flawed argument. This has nothing to do anymore with censorship, and everything to do with popper philosophical discourse.

[@telltellyn]

@@klaussone It's the reality of human discourse, complicated and messy. There's no point calling it stupid, the spectrum of acceptable topics is just how people work, like it or not.

[@jakegriffith6871]

Ironic that a video about censorship had to edit the titles of people's videos to try and lie and make them look bad

[@jakegriffith6871]

@Armando Barlick "A Critique of Star Wars The Last Jedi: Part 1" I imagine the other two titles are also bullshit, but he blurred out the uploaders so I can't verify

[@Thaatcher]

The top one was by Vito (a liberal) and was called The Last Jedi: A Cinematic Failure or something like that

[@arenkai]

Them doctoring titles to bolster their point in a video about censorship is irony at its finest. . . They might not know... But censorship can take different forms. . . They should make a video on it

[@blindeyedblightmain3565]

The fucking names are blurred as well, what the fuck are you talking about. And to even see a channel icon you have to zoom in like crazy. It's not the critique against them on a personal level, it is just a funny example he thought would be good to add in.

[@lainiwakura1776]

@@jakegriffith6871 They left the description on Chris Stuckmann's video, so that one is his and I know he doesn't tell people what to think about the movies he reviews.

[@JoelKellenProductions]

14:34 Getting someone fired for different opinions or forcing them off social media is not criticism. That's harassment, plain and simple.

[@yemo34]

After defaming Mauler. I think they very well know that, and are smuckling to themselves. "its not harassment as it doesn't fit the modern definition our colleagues in academia just made up, lol"

[@RoseEyed]

I think it depends on what the opinion is, since if we want to be reductive that's technically what everything amounts to. That said I don't entirely disagree.

[@pjmathison9787]

What about if a colleague is a nazi and social media is an example of market censorship

[@tomtommerson6320]

13:17 why did you change the title for Vito and Maulers video? The first one is just the same as the thumbnail. The third one (mauler's) should be: A Critique of Star Wars the Last Jedi Part 1

[@alexsmith2910]

They changed it to not have them receive flak for being hypocrites.

[@tomtommerson6320]

@@alexsmith2910 idc its still wrong

[@masonshipton2344]

Because they couldn't come up with any actual reasoning, so made up a bunch of bullshit.

[@frostylolman666]

Very dishonest to alter Mauler's video the way you did here.

[@frostylolman666]

​@Brazilian Goddess Oh okay, it's alright guys, they only misrepresented Mauler's work to avoid getting a copyright strike. Christ that's dumb.

[@punbug4721]

@Brazilian Goddess That... that is grossly not how fair use works. Fair use covers a five-second image used to build a point in your case. This would have easily been fair use. But now, it's slander. I'd say you need to be censored, except I believe in using discourse, if not persuade you, then to persuade anyone downstream in the conversation.

[@frostylolman666]

​@Brazilian Goddess I'm calling the point dumb. The opinion I stated is that the editing of titles of videos to misrepresent their content is dishonest, and your response was that they did it to avoid copyright, if you can't see how stupid that is then I don't know what to tell you. Just showing the unedited title and image would have been transformative in the context of this Wisecrack video and copyright would not be a point. Further, having a checkmark doesn't mean your work should be misrepresented.

[@sabin97]

this is wisecrack, what did you expect?

[@grettoonist4997]

@Brazilian Goddess Firstly, it may have ended up like this, but when it was first published, Wisecrack did not blur the video or channel for MauLer even though they did the same towards Vito (who disliked the film) and Chris Stuckmann. MauLer on Twitter pointed this out: twitter.com/MauLer93/status/1338962574558318595 "to protect their identity" doesn't hold up as well when not only did they not "protect their identity" for 100,000 people to see outside of the name change, having MauLer's profile picture and name out in the open. But Wisecrack does "protect their identity" for Vito and Chris Stuckmann! I don't know if this is out of incompetence or malicious bias personally against MauLer, but that's a double standard. And you say "name changed" on its own, do you actually acknowledge WHAT the name change was? "The Last Jedi: This is the Galaxy Liberals Want!" Wisecrack is making MauLer out to force in politics into his critique of the film, which is absolutely not what MauLer did. He even said at 1:46:08 when someone called him a "right wing gamer" because of "their inability to edit" in "A Critique of Star Wars: The Last Jedi - Part 3". What did he say? "What did my video [his video on Dark Souls 2] even cover that was remotely political? I make a point to avoid that side of discussion unless absolutely necessary, and yet I am right wing?" So this title is a misrepresentation of the video, especially when Wisecrack says it's among "40 minute rage-filled response video for the crime of suggesting The Last Jedi wasn't that bad, with no sense of irony." This is incredibly dishonest and hypocritical of Wisecrack to do, even if they don't like MauLer, that gives them no right to say this about him that's completely false to an audience that may have no clue what they're discussing and will take it at face value. And even with the copyright case, there is no evidence to suggest that MauLer would be greedy enough to take down the video because of one of his videos being featured in the search page of KZbin. Secondly, do you even know the purpose of a checkmark? It's to prevent fraud and label the content creator as official. This does not mean people are allowed to take him out of context or do something malicious because he's verified. That logic is so unbelievably loose that it's a joke. Because this person misrepresented the video, even edited it with a title to make it look worse, MauLer should suck it up and deal with it, or else he should give up his notice of being official? Excuse me, how does that make even remote sense? I don't know the context of Vito's video, but if it is something like Vito made something up about a verified content creator and said it's justified because that person has verified status, he is wrong. But I don't know, so cannot definitively say. There is a difference between criticism and misrepresentation, and this comment proves you don't know the difference if you think this logic is valid. It's fine, Wisecrack! Go ahead and say what you like about this guy! That's the power of the checkmark for something completely unrelated! Thirdly, I don't care if it only lasts for four seconds in a 20 minute video, that doesn't make it any less dishonest. That's like if I were to equate you to a group of murderers in a 25 minute video about law, which is completely uncalled for, and I hope for your sake that you too can recognise that. How happy would you be if I defended by stating that it only lasted for 5 seconds, so that removes me of any responsibility I have. Length doesn't matter when it comes to statements, I could say something really unpleasant and I cannot use the excuse of the fact that it was only a few seconds in a video 30 minutes long because that is irrelevant. If the point is valid, you can't try and excuse it with how long it lasted. What is the most damning about all of this is that criticising what Wisecrack did is "because you don't agree with something they say". This is not a matter of opinion, with the fact that this isn't a joke in any way, I would argue it's character assassination. Obviously not to the extreme, but that doesn't mean it's invalid. And you're acting like this is just some opinion piece on a KZbinr. Wisecrack doing this says a lot about their character. And the fact that you're defending it with these arguments, it says something about your character too. Making a mountain out of a molehill indeed! (And by the way, you're going to say that people should be better than insults, yet you stand by these scummy actions with arguments like these? Very bad look.)

[@genyatus]

Why are you changing video titles? Couldn't find actual evidence to support your claims?

[@spinosaurusstriker]

@Bane is just a prank guys ahihoiohiohiojio

[@jeffreyromeo3317]

@@spinosaurusstriker Pretty sure it is supposed to be satire, just executed very poorly

[@manuelzlopez9652]

I'm sorry but what was the original title? I didn't get here soon enough to see

[@jeffreyromeo3317]

@@manuelzlopez9652 i think the title was the same as whats on the video, they just didnt hide the profile picture so it looked like they defaming somebody. After they edited the video its clear their intent was to be satirical.

[@treymckinstry9177]

​@Bane IKR, It's a fucking one second clip. If their best argument for their accusation is that one second clip, that's a dead argument. Either there was another better example of deception that could actively impact discourse, which no one cited because they thought this was more important, or this one second clip was the only evidence of deceit. Either way, the argument's fucked.

[@usmcdevil91]

Why did you deceptively edit MauLer's video title?

[@L337N1NJ4L1NK]

@Brazilian Goddess That isn't how copyright works. This so obviously falls into fair use it hurts to have to explain this. Hell, if they are worried about copyright claims for using thumbnails then what about all the actual clips they use from movies? No, this explanation falls flat.

[@L337N1NJ4L1NK]

@Brazilian Goddess Incorrect. The obligation to go to court would lie with MauLer, not Wisecrack. In this instance, Wisecrack being a large channel with KZbin contacts also has a sort of trust built up so KZbin would expect a burden of proof from MauLer and not just trust his word. This is how Wisecrack can use movie clips without being copystruck. This wasn't about avoiding hassle. If it was, they wouldn't have used that section.

[@L337N1NJ4L1NK]

@Brazilian Goddess No, I think they did it to help bolster their point.

[@Zippyser]

@@L337N1NJ4L1NK You don't have to go to court, just claiming it is enough to get the video locked down dude.

[@L337N1NJ4L1NK]

@@Zippyser Here, let me explain how it works. A claim is made, KZbin locks the video if the claimant says to take it down. The owner of the video says nah, it isn't true and KZbin unlocks the video. Then the original claimant has 30 days to bring the case to court otherwise the claim is rendered moot legally.

[@chriswilson3126]

What's the deal with changing the titals of maulers last jedi vids?

[@AkaroXIV]

@Brazilian Goddess Eh your guess is as good as anyone else's.

[@rageface6667]

@Brazilian Goddess no their just twat

[@punbug4721]

@Brazilian Goddess Fair use covers a five-second screenshot of someone else's YT thumbnail if it's used as a point in your argument. Every YT creator knows that, especially one as big as Wisecrack. Why does a goddess need to simp?

[@TheBlueArmageddon]

@@punbug4721 Ah yes, cause the fair use laws are NEVER broken by KZbin or the "copyright holder" :)

[@AneTix101]

Why'd you change the title of Mauler's video when there's nothing political about it?

[@a-s-greig]

@Brazilian Goddess Content owner is here though... and he's ticked.

[@punbug4721]

@Brazilian Goddess Fair use covers a five-second screenshot of someone else's YT thumbnail if it's used as a point in your argument. Every YT creator knows that, especially one as big as Wisecrack.

[@MartianMallCopStudiosChannel]

@Brazilian Goddess lol are you a bot. This is copied like 50 times even when it doesn't make sense

[@96keyblade]

Why do you alter Mauler's Last Jedi video title making it political, when Mauler's video was not political?

[@lukew6725]

Also, he could have just shown the Unbridled Rage and it would have made the same point.

[@theone-uc9dm]

Why do you think because they're dishonest

[@96keyblade]

@@theone-uc9dm Since they altered information before presenting it to us in order to alter the way we perceive that information in a way that will support their argument.

[@theone-uc9dm]

@@96keyblade I was supposed to be sarcasm I could have worded that better I agreed with you

[@96keyblade]

@@theone-uc9dm Oh man, I'm sorry! My bad too, I can take things much too seriously.

[@MDTako]

Any reason you are changing the titles of videos to push you own narrative? For a video talking about censorship, it seems odd to attack others for disagreeing with your opinion and for pointing out the flaws in your claims.

[@ArtaShrike]

Hey. Taking one of Mauler's videos and changing the title, misrepresenting the content to create evidence for your point, is not cool.

[@AkaroXIV]

@Brazilian Goddess This copypasta has gotten stale.

[@frostsoul4199]

i wasn't just MauLer either. they did the same thing with two other guys but they had to blur out their videos in this reupload because they caught flak for it too. this is still scummy as hell.

[@theoverlord9944]

and why i should give a shit?

[@firepuppies4086]

@@theoverlord9944 because... hypocritical?

[@theoverlord9944]

@@firepuppies4086 you can say the same about me eating lead its not like anybody aside from the obvious will give a shit if i do

[@davidpacheco889]

13:13 @Wisecrack why did you choose to show @Mauler profile pic and video with a fake title?

[@gregcorona2439]

So how does that one small insignificant thing make the whole video nonsense?

[@jonahlstrom4753]

@@gregcorona2439 how does a video talking about the dangers of censorship get ruined when they are fabricating the supporting evidence? ...???

[@gregcorona2439]

@@jonahlstrom4753 This video isn't about star wars videos on KZbin. It really is insignificant. Period.

[@warbler1984]

@@gregcorona2439 it does make them look extremely disingenuous though. Also don't play dumb people here aren't objecting to an interpretation of star wars they're bemoaning that Wisecrack changed a video title by someone else for their own aims.

[@aronivarsson3493]

@@warbler1984 People don't care about dishonesty anymore. They want their own hateful feelings be acknowledged by other creators they think they share a worldview with. It's to justify their animosity towards the ones they want to discriminate, sort of like how people use stereotypes to judge certain persons character by the color of their skin, creed or political leaning. This isn't exclusive to "left" or "right" as it's portrayed in the KZbinsphere, but it's usually the extremes that portray this behavior. You can just see who are the most popular in this field, the ones "dunking" or "responding" on videos. Mauler is guilty of this as well, and I admit it's sometimes entertaining, but it doesn't add anything to the discussion. However, people are free to enjoy the media they want, and criticize whatever they want, however they want. But honesty should still be championed if you want to be taken seriously.

[@seanclydecorry1262]

I'm a big fan of Michael taking field trips like this hahaha

[@myshoeisjuan]

Yes, let him out of his house!!

[@Mi11imani]

Ditto😊😅

[@thePrincessv]

Wtf is ditto

[@Abradrake]

Why the hell did you give Mauler's video a different title that implies he has a problem with the politics of the movie? His video isn't even about politics, it's about the lack of consistency and flaws in the plot. The actual title is there in the thumbnail. What's even weirder is that thumbnails and icons above are censored.

[@jmn327]

Nobody cares.

[@Abradrake]

@@jmn327 But why do it? It makes no sense.

[@jmn327]

@@Abradrake Because they weren't showing you his video, they were showing an example of the *type* of video they were referencing, so they changed things around to say "things like this", not "this exact thing". It's also not an example of censorship.

[@Abradrake]

@@jmn327 So why not just make something up entirely? Why even bother using a real thumbnail for a video?

[@steaksauce232]

@@jmn327 If that type of video is so prevalent, why didn't they use *real ones*?

[@capamerica2427]

Hey Wisecrack. As a guy with a philosophy degree, I love your work. As a guy with a law degree, it’s worth mentioning that private companies in the US are obligated to not infringe on the first amendment if their property is sufficiently like a public square (think a company town where one Corp. Owns the schools, roads, streets etc.) Additinally, many social media platforms are given liability protection in exchange for allowing certain level of free speech. Aside from that, great video.

[@davidmockbro]

+

[@whuzzzup]

"Additinally, many social media platforms are given liability protection in exchange for allowing certain level of free speech. " Except they don't really like to be reminded of that, and the left screams when the president tells people that. But under Biden that will no longer be an issue and censorship will run rampant on social media.

[@NewUnit13]

@@whuzzzup What do we do about a president who also just so happens to be a pathological liar and is intentionally misleading _literally millions_ of people into believing patent falsehoods? We won't have that problem after Jan 20, but it's still a major problem that should be addressed going forward.

[@davidcrass4717]

@@NewUnit13 During one of the debates Trump said that Hunter Biden was removed from the military for doing drugs. Joe Biden flatly accused him of lying. Hunter did infact get a dishonorable discharge due to failing a drug test (don't take my word for it, look it up). There are plenty other lies from Biden as well (e.g. his claims about his credentials, etc. that the news caught him lying about in years past). We cannot use censorship to protect us from liars because we would have to censor everyone. If we pick and choose *which* lies/liars to censor, we would merely be giving preferential treatment to *other* lies/liars. If we start giving preferential treatment to certain lies/liars, we fall directly into a game of "us vs. them" in which the objective must be beating ones opponent and cannot therefore be concerned with the truth. On the surface it sounds great to censor liars, but it isn't that simple.

[@agafaba]

the issue is that they are already being held liable for content on their platforms anyway, so they are legally required to do some sensorship, then when they apply it in any way (including adding a disclaimer) to the wrong person they are called to be liable for that too. If Facebook should be allowing all content on their platform then they should be allowed to have ALL content, consequence free.

[@robertprije8078]

One of my favourite parts of Michael's Wisecrack videos is his mostly blank and deadpan face while saying "and now, back to the show" after doing his sponsorship spiel. It feels like he's saying so much while being careful to not overtly say anything at all. This video was fantastic, by the way. Well researched, non-partisan and very informative. Thanks, Wisecrack team!

[@miamiyeah]

Why did you photoshop mauler’s video

[@rageface6667]

@Brazilian Goddess stop with that fanboys they would have blurred him to if that was the cas their just dickhead

[@Hustler2_]

@Brazilian Goddess this is not how copyright works

[@Hustler2_]

@Brazilian Goddess if they were so afraid of copyright, then why show it at all? False titles fit their narrative, real ones don't

[@TRQDude]

@Brazilian Goddess It's very much lying. They first edited videos to showcase a narrative they wanted. Then when those creators spoke up about their content being misrepresented, it took them 3 different edits to blur the thumbnails and channels. Then all that's left is fake video titles that Wisecrack created to fit the narrative they want. It's scummy.

[@TRQDude]

@Brazilian Goddess Stop whiteknighting for them bot. You've copypasted the same replies like 20 times. They're the scumbags in this situation, and they should have just cut that portion f the video since they had to make up fake videos to promote their narrative.

[@HecmarJayam]

Changing the title of Mouler's video is a disgusting move.

[@petemadrona2252]

I don't know about censorship, but they definitely have to let you back into Taco Bell. Their discrimination against potatoes is unfounded.

[@lexman7179]

I think being banned from Taco Bell might be good for ones health.

[@spacepirate4623]

@@lexman7179 would be based

[@cadejust6777]

@@lexman7179 What Wisecrack Just Said Then Was Bulshit Universities Are Overwhelmingly To The Left Especially Left Wing University Professors so how can left-wing Professors Be Fired From Right Wing The right wing have no control over Universities It Is The Left That Have Control Over Universities so it makes Sense That right Wing Professors Are Actually The Ones Being Fired Not Left Wing Professors?.📱💲💰💸😎🤓?.

[@Nukarot]

13:18 Why did you block out Mauler's name and change his video title to be misleading?

[@vinnym8461]

Because false narratives drive this channel.

[@m0rthaus]

Obviously done to anonymize the example videos, probably for exactly this reason - to avoid backlash from fanboys of the video reviewers. Guess he should have censored them even more - blurring thumbnails, avatars, and rewording titles wasn't enough to protect from the wrath of the neckbeards. That'd be a good Star Wars title actually.

[@joethemig1522]

@@m0rthaus categorizing the response as "backlash" is just about as dishonest as changing the titles and misrepresenting the content of the videos in question. Heaven forbid people point out when others are lying openly about things.

[@Lucaintheninjatank]

​@@m0rthaus Ah yes anonymizing also known as leaving the channel icon and thumbnail the same and re-naming the video from "A Critique of The Last Jedi" to "The Last Jedi: This is The Galaxy Liberals Want!" I mean why not just rename all videos they show to "Wisecrack is a great and trusted resource" to truly anonymize all things they show and totally not misrepresent people who are critical of them.

[@TheSunshineGroup]

@Brazilian Goddess you've been commenting that on a lot of posts. Maybe you should just get over it. See what I did there?

[@invaaalid5190]

Big mistake crossing Mauler like that, Wisecrack. You've dun goofed!

[@bendamasta]

Ooooh, they're so scared over a bunch of basement dwelling trolls ooooh

[@TheBlujy]

@@bendamasta why are you defending them spreading false information? In a video about censorship of all things?

[@neuemilch8318]

@@TheBlujy it was a god dame joke and your reaction, makes it even funnier, good job.

[@TheBlujy]

@@neuemilch8318 how is a not funny edit to make someone look bad a joke?

[@NobleRenegade7]

You'll come to learn that Benny has not added any real value to his comments. He just spits an insult than runs away.

[@alexsolomon9665]

The modern concept of censorship is in and of itself a paradox. People believe that censorship should be objective, free from biases or beliefs. The paradox is that those who do the censoring are people with biases and beliefs, which negates the purpose of unbiased censorship. Censorship may be inevitable, but it's also impossible to certify the censor. Great video, it definitely made me think.

[@truecatholic1]

Truth is the measure. Reality is the standard of truth.

[@dizzydoom4230]

13:17 Nice of you to disingenously change up titles of videos in order to fit your narrative.

[@gregcorona2439]

What narrative are they trying to sell here by specifically changing titles of some videos y'all are hyper obsessed with then? Hmm?

[@dizzydoom4230]

@@gregcorona2439 That the videos are simply blind, ignorant rage over the critiques they actually are. Also, yes, I totally watch these videos day-in and day-out. Your conclusion is flawless.

[@NobleRenegade7]

13:23 You make an entire video about censorship then have the audacity to ripoff and misrepresent MauLer? Are you f****** kidding me?

[@bendamasta]

Lmfao cry you triggered victim, cry

[@kaisatron5358]

Care to explain why the statement is wrong? Or should I expect a troll response?

[@Gackt4awesome]

Mauler is being represented perfectly. He's a manchild who threw a temper tantrum over a franchise ruined back in 1999 by Lucas and missed the point of what a RedLetterMedia video is suppose to be.

[@NobleRenegade7]

He is not a "man child" that threw a "temper tantrum." I never understand where this comes from because nobody can point to a legitimate example. He made a very detailed review about the quality (more like lackof) of TLJ. His videos are long because he covers EVERYTHING. He has the absolute right to be annoyed because they literally strawmaned his video title. In his video they reference, he mentions that the movie is "left leaning" and that is it. He doesnt even say thats a bad thing, in fact he goes very out of his way to say its not an issue, just an observation. He never once even uses the term "liberals." Go watch his TLJ reviews and you'll see how he is not even close to a manchild.

[@lainiwakura1776]

@@Gackt4awesome Are you going to call Chris Stuckmann a manchild who threw a temper tantrum too? Because his video is the one right about Mauler's in that screencap.

[@thetimeisninefifteen]

Oh, you've taken to lying at 13:19? Have a good one. Hope you fail or rectify and apologize.

[@bendamasta]

Lmfao triggered so hard

[@FringeSpectre]

@@bendamasta so it's just like, "teehee lying about someone to prove a point is so cool bruh!"???? You're a mongoloid.

[@ultimateagent25]

@@bendamasta kzbin.info/www/bejne/pF6TgHqPip6fmq8

[@telltellyn]

@@FringeSpectre They blurred out the names and changed the titles, if they were targeting those YTers rather than making a general joke why would they have done that? Typical outrage nerd culture, screeching before you put a fucking iota of thought into it.

[@yeahkeen2905]

@@telltellyn they did that *to* target them you idiot. That’s the whole point of lying, you change things. And they blurred the names so no one could notice. Not that complicated.

[@joshuachitwood7586]

Thanks for criticizing Mauler. I now know how little worth you hold.

[@SellOrFail]

I mean...facts don't care about your feelings right? Lol

[@joshuachitwood7586]

@@SellOrFail You're nonsense reply will be lost to history, like the names of worthless men.

[@grandarkfang_1482]

I love how this video is about censorship, and yet Mauler's video, and a bunch of other people's videos on The Last Jedi were either censored or had their titles re-written to fit the narrative of this video.

[@theoverlord9944]

why are so many people up in arm over this it is just one clip of videos about a KZbinr about a topic that people don't give a shit about

[@themaverick6269]

@@theoverlord9944 BECAUSE THEY ARE AN EDUCATIONAL CHANNEL MORON! Jesus Christ! It's almost like people don't like it when a supposedly educational youtube channel blatantly lies to their faces! FREAKING SHOCKER!

[@theoverlord9944]

@@themaverick6269 one don't call me a moron 2 calm down Karen it just a joke I made 3 do you have to insult me?

[@lukew6725]

@@theoverlord9944 The original title of Mauler's video is "A Critique of Star Wars: The Last Jedi - Part 1" yet Wisecrack shows it as "The Last Jedi: This is the galaxy liberals want" . Do you honestly not see how he is purposely misrepresenting Mauler here?

[@theoverlord9944]

@@lukew6725 I do see it but I don't give a shit if they misrepresented some random youtuber who made a hour long video to say a bad movie was bad

[@kokofan50]

When you say an independent review was done on something, you have to say by whom it was done. That’s a rather interesting bit of censorship in a video about censorship

[@davidreynold7919]

No.... you don't understand the guy was independently biased, that changes everything

[@JanVerny]

I mean, yeah, they should cite their sources like more serious channels do, but the idea behind "independent review" is that well it is independent.

[@kokofan50]

@@JanVerny I fully support a review by an independent third party, but saying something something was done by a third party doesn’t give it credibility, like they seem to think it does.

[@falahati]

@@kokofan50 search man; this is the internet. It's not TV and you don't have to, and honestly should not take what is said here as fact. The fact that they pointed to an "article" should be enough to find it easily for anyone interested. Otherwise, as far as the video itself is concerned, it was just used to make a point. This video was not about that article.

[@kokofan50]

@@falahati it’s not my job to find their sources, and if they mention something without actually giving their source, it takes away from their point.

[@MereBearScare]

I'd argue that "cancel culture" is a form of censorship, but more on a cultural level, and inadvertently leads to people censoring themselves if they want to keep their jobs and avoid getting ripped apart by Twitter.

[@davidlewis6728]

cancel culture attacks you irl for what you say online. free speech=/=free expression.

[@naknampucha5236]

@@davidlewis6728 Mob mentality will destroy anything as long they find it fit to "Cancel" anything. It doesn't have to be right or wrong, as long they started instigating it and find it believable, nobody can stop them, even if they feel wronged, nobody will apologize or pay the damage that have been made.

[@davidlewis6728]

@@naknampucha5236 defang the mob and cancel culture goes away. censor the mob and they only get more violent.

[@lordofthegremlins]

Of course you're not going to have much freedom of speech at all in a public sphere. Social media companies already have a thousand anti-free speech guidelines listed out in their policies itself. If you want to actually have free speech you have to go outside the public eye (underground). Because people are very good at mucking everything up including free speech. Anything else is social fascism or in other words, socialistic.

[@chrissullivan6403]

13:23 Oh the irony of lying in a video about the dangers of misinformation. It’s like caviar for the mind.

[@sicarii545]

what do you mean its all blurred. I didn't even realize those were real results but if anything g he was just making fun of those types of channels

[@chrissullivan6403]

@@sicarii545 psst, my comment was from 6 months ago. You reckon it’s possible that the video has been altered in that time?

[@shaheedharun445]

They don't just censor misinformation

[@willsono408]

Did this guy change the title of maulers video????

[@thekman719]

Yep

[@Our_Family152]

@@thekman719 yes read my other comment he's the one who's really censoring

[@MagnusPrimeZ]

Wisecrack censoring comments in a video about censorship in 3...2...

[@TheMasterBlaze]

3...2...1... Let's jam!

[@lambchu6459]

@@TheMasterBlaze ba-dup ba-dup ba-dup ba-da daaaaa

[@lilliandsouza4982]

@@lambchu6459 rit dit dit dit do!

[@CandrewG64]

at 13:18 you blatantly lie about Mauler's work and mistitle the video he made to try and make a point about hypocrisy and irony. Wow...

[@nicholasberthod9606]

*[REDACTED]*

[@JackSparrow-re4ql]

****!

[@FaithFacts]

B******!

[@a-s-greig]

*_This Content Has Been Approved By The Ministry Of Truth._* *_Remember: BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU._*

[@TwentyPercentDash]

13:20 Mauler's video is directed at the plot of TLJ, not at the people who _"think it's not that bad."_ This is so disingenuous. Also, you've censored his original title and made up a fake strawman title, while leaving his channel icon on there. So you're literally censoring him for the purpose of pushing your own agenda, while ironically making this video about censorship. I hope you make this right.

[@ChaseFace]

I'm with you dude but the Rainbow Dash avatar paired with saying "he's tweeting about you!" make us look bad lol

[@TwentyPercentDash]

@@ChaseFace - Hi Chase! I agree with your criticism regarding my tone, and have edited it accordingly.

[@Gackt4awesome]

No, it's directed a throwing a mannchild who threw temper tantrum over a franchise that was ruined back in 1999. Also he missed the point as to why a RedLetterMedia video works.

[@Ardejas]

@@Gackt4awesome "censorship and lies are ok if I don't like the person" 👏👏👏Bravo👏👏👏you 👏👏👏 hypocrite 👏👏👏

[@TwentyPercentDash]

@@Gackt4awesome - Mauler's video is directed at throwing a man-child? Your comment is quite difficult to decipher.

[@pawkeshup]

Since when have you started faking screenshots of KZbin?

[@lukedelzell4880]

You censored Vito's name.

[@vito]

Yup. They don't want people finding out I'm a huge liberal who has never endorsed any Fox News commentators.

[@telltellyn]

@@vito Yes I'm sure everyone comes out of this video drawing conclusions about you and other KZbinrs from that split second shot with blurred out names, icons and fake titles.

[@lukedelzell4880]

@Brazilian Goddess nope

[@vito]

@@telltellyn You realize they only added the blur after we called them out, yeah?

[@vito]

@Brazilian Goddess They added the blur AFTER people pointed out their hypocrisy

[@wojocole]

👋 Lefty here to say that it's extremely disturbing how the right blantently gets censored over and over again only to be constantly gaslit about it.

[@thetimeisninefifteen]

Not on the right but I appreciate it

[@sabin97]

i'm not a "leftie" but i LOVE watching people get fucked in the ass by systems they vehemently promote. most of those people being censored are the "a business is free to do whatever the fuck it wants" kind of people....and now those private businesses are choosing to not have them in their publishing platforms. when you create a monster, and the monster kills you, that's one of the most beautiful things in the world. like what happened to faux "news" with drumpf supporters. for years they fed conspiracy theories and kowtowed to everything drumpf said regardless of how obviously false it was....they helped create the cult. and now when they try to have a tiny shred of integrity left, because it goes against the dogma of the cult, the cult abandoned them and their viewership is taking huge losses.

[@ikejohnson5494]

Thank you for promoting healthy discourse even with those you disagree

[@themaverick6269]

@@sabin97 Projecting much? "Wah, wah! Trump supporters are cultists because they don't believe in my ideology! We should match around and kill/beat people until everyone agrees!" 30 people were killed in the BLM riots and you will answer for them. One way or another.

[@sabin97]

@@themaverick6269 "Projecting much?" i'm not projecting. i'm EXPLICITLY telling you that i love watching idiots fail by their own hands and be swallowed by the monsters they create. i dont follow any ideology. i love mocking them all. 2016 was a delicious year in terms of liberal tears. 2020 was even more delicious in terms of conservative tears. keep crying my precious snowflake. your tears make me stronger. over 300k so far. hopefully 500k by the end of the year :)

[@KINGXlll]

Beyond pathetic that you guys changed Mauler's video title and altered Stuckman's and Vito's as well. Guess it's really hard being pseudo - intellectuals when you have to actually find evidence.

[@brogansmith1342]

Pretty much every single negative comment I've seen so far has been about this one example. The video is 20 minutes long, and all the criticism is about this one visual, shown for a few seconds. Wisecrack aren't the ones scrounging for evidence here.

[@mookosh]

@@brogansmith1342 they also lied about left wing college professors being the primary victims of cancel culture. They love to lie, man. Wisecrack is a very evil youtube channel, not because they're like Alex jones being all crazy, but because they seem so agreeable that if you aren't paying close attention they can trick you into passively accepting their lies. It's very disturbing and deeply upsetting. There's no reason for their pathological leftist propagandism... It's just them being ideologues in a really shitty, dishonest way. If you're going to be a leftist at least be honest yknow?

[@thatoneguy5433]

@@mookosh can you please show me evidence that they lied

[@thatoneguy5433]

@@mookosh also I think this is Vox article will change your mind www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/3/17644180/political-correctness-free-speech-liberal-data-georgetown

[@juuum797]

@@thatoneguy5433 just looked at the article. Universities tend to have a higher percentage of left wing employees and as such they are much more likely to be in the firing range of cancel culture. But also the study makes no difference between mass student protests like the ones seen on the news and such cases as a student being reprimanded by the uni's president for reading out a political poem at her commencement speech. To ignore the difference between these two types makes the study seem kind of ridiculous and biased to me

[@Asa-tm9ey]

Yikes 13:20 changed the titles of the videos

[@DDHero2806]

172,066 views? Remember when you used to get millions? Maybe if you stopped BSing your audience you'd still be pulling in those numbers.

[@fds7476]

Well clearly, there's no pleasing everyone.

[@claynorth964]

what are they lying about? specifically?

[@TheTendermen]

13:20 mate the titles are wrong

[@EziooAuditore]

Which is ironic in a video about censorship lmao

[@TheTendermen]

@Brazilian Goddess So to avoid copyright claims all they had to do is lie about content owners content...

[@Vivi_9]

Oh my God why do so many people care about this lmao stop missing the point

[@tickaten]

@Brazilian Goddess no, it's because they didn't fit their point maulers video is not about the galaxy liberals want, its a critique, and vito, the one they changed to death of the cinema is a die hard liberal

[@tickaten]

@Brazilian Goddess why would you do it if you were them then

[@ferritparade5808]

15:26 Not to be a contrarian but when you look at the median and mean averages of a majority of study’s. The number is extremely similar for right and left leaning censorship. It’s just that some universities are much more right wing and some are much more left wing and they fire lots of professors who oppose their views

[@ferritparade5808]

Also at 15:26 it shows vox as a source. But they are consistently rated one of the most left leaning media companies in the US

[@gonzalogutierrez510]

@@ferritparade5808 regarding populations, you always have to ask in relative numbers. More left leaning professors are being fired than right leaning, but what's the previous relation between them? Maybe there were more left leaning professors to begin with

[@AfricaGeo]

Most universities and higher education institutions are left leaning ....

[@crietzsche]

@@ferritparade5808 Okay, left or right leaning is not an argument the against data. You either need to criticize the methods or the interpretations.

[@crietzsche]

@@ferritparade5808 Also, the source was not from Vox, they simply published about it. The review was from The Knight Foundation. Sorry you couldn't be bothered to check it out.

[@jericho7173]

If you actually watched Mauler's videos you would know he avoids talking about politics because he believes talking about that stuff distracts from art analysis. You guys purposefully misrepresenting his last jedi critique is low. I've lost all respect for this channel as an educational platform. You shouldn't have to lie to prove your point.

[@LaserCoreX]

13:22 way to completely change the title of his video to fit your narrative. Almost like you couldn’t be bothered to prove your point and just created your own evidence. Here is the "rage-filled" video in question: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fKu9n6CMrb2soLc

[@papershadow]

What I find even more hilarious (as a MauLer fan) is that they chose to do this with the hour long intentionally-not-enraged video, instead of the one literally called "The Last Jedi: An Unbridled Rage" for rage-filled video. I can't even tell if that's more malicious or even greater incompetence than I initially thought.

[@arklaw8306]

@@papershadow Perhaps they thought that the thumbnail of the Unbridled rage would clue people in that the video wasn't 100% objective or deep, making their message moot.

[@Gackt4awesome]

Mauler's 8 hour video is a manchild throwing a temper tantrum over a franchise that was ruined back in 1999 by Lucas himself. I say they hit the nail on the head because only an obsessive idiot gets so obsessed in making such a video while missing the point of what RedLetterMedia videos actually do.

[@papershadow]

I mean, the contention is that the long critique was not even angry compared to another easy-to-locate video on his channel, and that whether or not it's bad, the title referencing Liberals isn't relevant to the content of the video either. It's like, they have easy ammo for what they seem to be aiming for, and chose to photoshop something less fitting instead of using the applicable video. It's incompetent at that point regardless of if one even dislikes MauLer.

[@orenalbertmeisel3127]

@@Gackt4awesome what Wisecrack did with Mauler's video is disingenuous and outright malicious. Wisecrack changed the title of the video giving it a political connotation that was not the intent of the original creator, Mauler. Have you actually watched one of Mauler's videos? If so you would know that Mauler judges a movie by the movie itself, by highlighting potential plot holes, character consistency, world-building and so on. He has no political agenda.

[@AzkuulaKtaktu]

The Last Jedi really was that bad.

[@JM-us3fr]

Not as bad as Rise of Skywalker, but still bad

[@AzkuulaKtaktu]

@@JM-us3fr As a standalone film, it's not quite as bad. As a piece of the larger star wars universe, it is much worse than RoS

[@AzkuulaKtaktu]

Comparing pig shit to horse shit. What's the point?

[@rubbers3]

Sooo.... In this video we got told that: -Not hiring someone based on the merits needed for that job is the same as firing someone that met all the necessary criteria based on their political affiliation -Not liking that people demand a removal of the most successful podcast on the planet due to tackling a vast majority of issues is the same as requiring a company to pay everybody, regardless of their merits -A fair and balanced critique/in-depth review of a movie is a "rage filled response for suggesting a movie was not that bad" -Not saying curse words around your parents is the same as "I'm going to try to get you fired for having a different worldview" In other words - this video is absolutely terrible.

[@neuemilch8318]

no man the point they are trying to make is. censorship is a blury line and it is hard if not imposibel to avoid bekose wat ever you are saying to anoter persone has cosequenses. dame man, you seem to be a bit angry. is everything all right?

[@punbug4721]

@@neuemilch8318 Where the fuck did he seem angry? lmao What you said is meaningless fluff about blurry lines, ignoring the fact that people are legitimately losing their means of feeding their families bc of personal beliefs. You need to be _more_ angry about that.

[@Inanedata]

I disagree with your conclusions regarding this video. Like, one is that not swearing around your parents is a specific example of "sociological" censorship. So is someone getting fired for their political beliefs. That doesn't make both examples equal in magnitude, or "the same" in any way other than that they are both within a category of censorship that is based upon cultural values within social groups. Perhaps the biggest issue with this video is that it does very little to accurately educate people on a broad field of sociological study and leads to misinterpretations like yours. Which, I'm not trying to insult you in any way by saying. More I'm saying the issue is with this video being bad edu-entertainment that just confuses people who aren't already educated on a topic as academic and obscure as sociology's take on censorship.

[@rubbers3]

@@Inanedata One is seflcensoring, while other is a direct action against you by another person with socioeconomical ramifications. They're not in the same league, not just in terms of magnitude, but also not in the same category. However, even if you're going to paint a such a broad category as "censorship that is based upon cultural values within social groups", you're still wrong, since political affiliation is not "cultural values within a social group". So yeah, you're double wrong.

[@IceBreaker1881]

If you want to find out who truly rules you, examine who you are not allowed to criticize.

[@MasonDixonAutistic]

Babies. Can't criticise babies without people getting upset. Fat little shits.

[@walnuthead]

That is terrible logic lol

[@dedcaesar2325]

For me it was a blue check on twitter, I called her a "**tard" and got permabanned.

[@shoepuffwilliam560]

Confusion is the best weapon to use with people with internet access. They play the same side guys but they want us to argue and not know who to believe.

[@deadpilled2942]

This is the conclusion that I keep coming back to

[@shoepuffwilliam560]

@deadpilled2942 when people are in a state of confusion they are more prone to be in a state of fear. When people are in a state of fear it's easier to have an authority figure come out and be like "follow me, I have the answer." Esier to get people to fight, flight, or freeze. Most are running to mindless content online. Others are frozen with fear. Some are looking to find an enemy to fight.

[@scooterdemo]

13:19 Changing the titles why? Afraid someone might find them and realize they don't support your point as well as your pretending they do?

[@caldw615]

Or being demonetized because YT has struck channels for simply featuring a thumbnail or title of another person's video before.

[@scooterdemo]

@@caldw615 thats horse shit and you know it😂 even if that was why then they should at least give titles representative of the videos

[@caldw615]

@@scooterdemo So youtube's copyright bots and strike system isn't easily abused? Can you back this up? I can point to any number of examples of it being shit for people only using screenshots of titles/thumbnails (Spacecoconut is a recent one when talking about the Dead by Daylight video game and someone else got annoyed they used a thumbnail from their video in his, thus striking the channel)

[@scooterdemo]

@@caldw615 you know thats not why he did it, why did he make the titles seem like the videos titles were all extremely right leaning, when the original titles gave no such implication, he did it to push a narative

[@caldw615]

@@scooterdemo The world isn't out to get you mate. Back up your argument with something tangeable or call it a day.

[@joeybar.]

Lmao you straight up changed Mauler’s title

[@alexsandoval1343]

I really enjoyed most of this video. A great look at the evolution of censorship, if not the best look at the problems facing us today. As always a huge Wisecrack fan, keep up the good work guys!

[@DeimanFlores]

JAREDS HAIR HAS A MIND OF ITS OWN AND CONTROLS HIS BODY! SPREAD THE NEWS BEFORE THEy CENSHFUUSU-- error

[@mmmk6322]

Covfefee

[@josethebioform7519]

The godly golden locks wants unity D F. Why must you resist cant you see the the tendrils reaching for you are locks of love. May it ever have volume

[@JackSparrow-re4ql]

Who is this "Jar Ed" of whom you speak?

[@momscastle]

Big Shampoo is putting mind controlling sulfides in their products. Beware! Many such cases

[@sophdog2564]

Keeps is trying to censor my scalp from the world lol

[@understandingart9961]

For good

[@acerba]

The more I learn about Wilson, the more I come to believe that he was the worst president in US history.

[@paulblart6411]

Yeah, he pretty much caused all of the nam and iraq strife down the line lmao

[@gnarlyburrito5123]

Herbert Hoover, Barack Obama, and Andrew Johnson are far worse😂. Promise

[@danw.1250]

@@gnarlyburrito5123 You're not seriously lumping Obama in with a man who refused to intervene in the Great Depression and a man who is responsible for botching reconstruction, are you? That seems more than a bit disingenuous. Just saying.... Obama, worse than Nixon? Really? Worse than Jackson? You know the guy who is more or less responsible for the Trail of Tears...come on, man. I'm not saying Obama was the best, but he was nowhere near the worst.

[@puesbien]

@@danw.1250 Obama vastly expanded NSA surveillance, kept us in foreign wars and funneled weapons to the “freedom fighters” who eventually became ISIS, targeted political adversaries through the IRS, heavily suppressed media and press coverage of his administration, bailed out the banks in 2009 without prosecuting any of the executives who fucked the economy... the first black president doesn’t mean that he was a good president. Know the difference brother.

[@gnarlyburrito5123]

@@danw.1250 I mean Obama did horrible for the economy and as well divided the country more than any other president, as well as illegally spying on Trump's campaign

[@PieanimationStudios1]

Wisecrack, are you going to address the fact you changed the title of a video to suit your narrative? Really not cool.

[@davidmeridian1288]

Oh? what was it before? (current title is "How Censorship Changed")

[@thekman719]

@@davidmeridian1288 they changed the titles of the Star Wars videos they showed to misrepresent the content of the videos

[@davidmeridian1288]

@@thekman719 Ahh, gotcha

[@Ancor_Vantian]

Stop ignoring this shit, guys! 13:23 Why did you changed Mauler's video's title? Did you even realize the actual fucking title is the Goddamned thumbnail!? The video is not called "The Last Jedi: This is the Galaxy Liberals Want!", it is *A Critique of Star Wars: The Last Jedi - Part 1* (of 3) Here is the link the the Playlist so you can see it for yourself: kzbin.info/aero/PLBBJXQJJavX2VueOEqGSaBNsGaHZREWEr This is not good, this is very NOT good. The more you ignore it the more people will call it out. Get in front of this and explain

[@Personell101]

You didn't even photoshop the name of mauler's video right.

[@cheeselover626]

I really enjoy the end part discussing the public square which gave everyone a voice. That is what this is coming down to: Should we treat social media platforms as a public square/bulletin board where everyone has a right to speech, even the craziest and outlandish, or are the platforms fully within the right of the companies to censor as they please? I'm in favor of the former due to how much they are intertwined in our everyday life and communication.

[@ayior]

I gave you a thumbs up but I want to reinforce this comment even more, like, yes this is the debate we should be having, none of that partisan shit. In my opinion, I'm currently swaying towards moderated spaces, though I'm open to changing that idea. Also why not just both? Some moderated platforms, some unregulated.... There is Mastodon, basically a twitter but made out of many servers, each of which has it's own moderation policies and everybody can make one and they can connect or disconnect from each other... its a bit complicated to explain, but I think it's a great concept that could be the best of both worlds. Though at the moment the majority of server are so leftist that even me, a person idendifying as Nonbinary which is basically only accepted in left wing spaces, finds it too extreme. However technically a server can have any policy it wants, and several Alt-Right groups have also already escaped to Mastodon servers.

[@DukePegasus]

Wisecrack: "if there is no evidence, we'll create it"

[@laurenmasters]

Weird you changed Mauler and Chris Stuckmanns video titles for this. Almost like it didn’t fit your narrative

[@MichaelPohoreski]

**Irony:** Video about censorship censoring other people's work!

[@AngryCerealMilk]

This is all very ironic considering you changed the title of MauLer's Star Wars critique to fit your narrative

[@BlastinRope]

Right now someone is laughing to him/herself because they thought that demonizing free speech would be difficult

[@stigmaoftherose]

I've heard people say anyone who defends free speech just wants to yell racial slurs at black people. It is so easy to demonize free speech with ridiculous claims.

[@stigmaoftherose]

@@shariqtorres563 what do you mean, I'm saying that people claim that is the only reason to defend free speech.

[@stigmaoftherose]

@@shariqtorres563 I never once said those people don't exist, I said the people who demonize free speech claiming everyone who wants free speech is one of those is ridiculous.

[@YouAintGotNoTegridyBoi]

@@shariqtorres563 the whole point of free speech is to protect speech you detest. Dimwit.

[@searchingforufos3102]

usa social media is less free now than a eastern European gulag

[@Painhamburger]

Hey just wondering why you decided to manipulate and take out of context some of the content in your video? twitter.com/VitoGesualdi/status/1338598672330678272 "So @wisecrack used my video as an example of "conservatives" being hypocrites. They changed the title so viewers can't find the original, which would reveal I'm a huge lefty and disprove their bizarre ideological arguement. Meanwhile, look at what they retitled @MauLer93's vid."

[@alexsmith2910]

Because the video was not about those people. But the point.

[@whuzzzup]

@@alexsmith2910 Then you don't need the thumbnail. Or find a fitting one (if there is one - should not be that hard if the "point" was valid).

[@smokefan4000]

@@alexsmith2910 You shouldn't have to make stuff up and lie to make a point

[@mistertroll4107]

This is some serious gaslighting material here.

[@Joe--]

How so?

[@BarrPictures]

@@Joe-- 1 example is at 5:25 Wisecrack did not include the 3 million Muslims that were expelled and kicked out of Spain, they only mention the Jewish population that were expelled.

[@mistertroll4107]

@@Joe-- The Overton Window part got me. He was illistrating the point that some issues are within the overton window ( medicare for all, Trump 2020 build a wall ) and other arent ( UBI, Defund the police, Stop the steal ) the truth is you can go online all you want and argue for UBI or defunding the police and there is no censorship but on the other side there is. If you try to say the election was staged and provide some proof to you argument twitter will ban it for "misinformation". I'm a non voter so I dont give a shit but this is dishonesty.

[@elbruces]

@@mistertroll4107 They wouldn't if you actually provided the evidence, which no one has. Interesting username for someone who presumably wants us to take your argument seriously.

[@Joe--]

@@elbruces Their username is "mister troll," they have not provided sources or evidence. I'd also take what they say with great a pillar of salt.

[@poorlybus417]

13:19 That’s pretty shitty to photoshop a KZbin video title to improve you argument.

[@SoCal818]

Shouting "Fire!" In a crowded theater isn't censorship because that's technically a "call to action" not free speech.

[@a-s-greig]

It's also impossible today for another reason: 😷

[@vito]

13:17 Interesting that you decided to showcase my thumbnail but didn't have the courage to keep the original title or show my name. Guess you were worried people might actually watch it and realize it didn't fit your fake narrative.

[@vito]

Also: I'm a diehard liberal, you wingnuts. Your ideological bias is showing.

[@crietzsche]

@@vito Nothing you're saying makes any sense. False narrative? You were just the butt of a small joke. Relax.

[@vito]

@@crietzsche Associating my work with titles like "This is the Galaxy Liberals Want" is to reinforce the fake narrative about Star Wars movie critique being driven by some political agenda. Nothing in my video, nor Mauler's video, fits this absurd reduction. Not to mention that the notorious partisan hacks at Fox News are used as the example of people complaining about censorship, whereas me and other small creators are used as the immediate example of those complaints being hypocritical. This is such a bizarre edit (does Fox News do Star Wars reviews now?) that again, seems to assume that anyone making these reviews agrees with conservative talking points. If they were going to invent new video titles anyway, there was no reason to use my thumbnail.

[@SuperCleek1]

@@vito I understand where you are coming from, but honestly I didn't even notice the thumbnail or titles. All I was paying attention to was the commentary and a casual joke about star wars the last Jedi.

[@orenalbertmeisel3127]

@@SuperCleek1 it might be just a "casual joke" for you, but it’s still incredibly disingenuous and deceptive. Both Mauler and Vito has no political intentions with their videos about TLJ. They are judging the movie by looking at the movie itself: plot, consistency and so on. But Wisecrack is showing their thumbnails and Mauler’s PFP in a segment where he just moments ago showed clips from Fox News. Wisecrack also edited both Mauler and Vito's video titles. The edit he did with Mauler is especially outrageous, and he makes it seem like Mauler has an anti-liberal agenda, and to some extent everyone who doesn’t like TLJ, including Vito. Wisecrack is spreading disinformation

[@johnsnow04]

I kinda think its hypocritical from you to talk about censorship. While you did censor and misrepresented Mauler, Vitos and Chris Stuckmann for some reason(even though he liked TLJ) videos and them as some right-wing Fox News people just because they didnt like movie that came from one of the richest and biggest corporations in the world. With fake names of their videos none the less. And probably because you liked the movie and they dont. So, shame on you for that.

[@Sound_Tech]

You mean to say people are often biased or hypocritical? What's new. 🤷‍♂️

[@originaldarkwater]

@@Sound_Tech That doesn't mean that you can't call them out for it.

[@alstrong5115]

Thats a critique of someone’s opinion, not censorship

[@kingflumph5968]

While it might have had an unintended Kuleshov effect, it seems to me that he was demonstrating the duality of people saying "I'm afraid to share my ideas because of the social repercussions" and also saying "I'm going to enforce social repercussions on people who have this idea I don't like." And he used TLJ as the example. Which is not particularly groundbreaking. Everyone suppresses some of their own thoughts and also attempts to suppress some other thoughts, that's the idea behind the constitutive censorship. No lawyers are getting involved over anyone's TLJ opinions, but social communities absolutely affect what people do and say. Is there anyone alive who genuinely believes that every single idea should be uniformly free and unrestricted at all times? I'm not so sure, given how the constitutive censorship is always present.

[@joeberg3317]

This is a pretty bad video after the 15 minute mark. Equating the Overton Window with substantive criticism can be used to justify basically everything mentioned in the first part of the video, and large corporations enforcing a censorship based on an internal consensus is perfectly open to an objection that they aren’t actually representing the middle of public views. That’s...perfectly fair to call censorship. Nor do you take the point about academic freedom seriously. Edit: and you misleadingly edit your ideological opponents? Yeesh

[@augustgreig9420]

You forgot to mention the absolutely absurd claim he made that the censorship of academics on college campuses happens far more to left leaning professors as a result of conservative backlash. On what planet does this take place? The one that goes back in time 70 or 80 years? The only way he can possibly get away with saying this is by being extremely misleading, and looking at the total number of professors who are censored, rather than looking at the numbers by percentage of the faculty that they make up. It's not a secret that most colleges have like 10% conservative professors at most, with some departments being like 99% leftists/left leaning "moderates". So obviously more leftist professors would be considered or fired, they outnumber conservatives 10-1. But where I believe he is just flat out lying is when he says they are censored by conservative backlash. That's just flat out untrue. Where in the fuck would this conservative backlash come from? Certainly not the students. And the church definitely doesn't have that kind of power anymore. People like Brett Weinstein and Jordan Peterson (who I presume he counts as left or left leaning or liberal) were driven off campus by far left students and administrators, not by "conservative backlash". And I'd be willing to be that this is the case I'm nearly every instance of a leftist professors being censored, that they weren't left enough, or they dare to have even a single independent thought that waivered from the official narrative. They can make fun of Giuliani all they want, but talk to anyone who grew up or lived under the Soviet Union or Castro, and they will all tell you that things were basically the same there, in that everyone was told what to believe, and was forced to stick to the exact narrative, while at the same time, everyone knew everyone else was lying. And even so, even when they were just in private company with friends, no one ever dated to say anything that they were all thinking. And finally, when he says that politicians don't worry about shifting the Overton window, that's another flat out lie. That is the sole purpose of most of what they do, because it certainly isn't actually getting legislation passed. That's why the revel in so many so-called, "symbolic victories". Those are literally victories which affect the culture rather than victory in any legal sense. And when he mentioned that the media does try to shift the Overton window, I nearly spit out my drink. As if politicians didn't completely control what agenda the legacy media pushed, and what stories the "news" reports on. It's also a flat out lie that private companies don't have to abide by free speech laws. If I'm in Taco Bell, which is apparently relevant because he keeps bringing it up along with potatoes, all the while I thought that kind of "le quirky so random, SPORK! the pEnGuIn oF dOoM" humor went out ten years ago... Anyway, if I'm at a restaurant and my friends and I are talking about Republican policies we disagree with, the manager has no right to kick us out. If I'm in a public area like a mall food court offering flyers with political messages on them, they are not allowed to make me stop, and this has been upheld by the California Supreme Court. In the same way, AT&T does not have a right to end my service or censor my text messages because they don't like what I'm saying. So tats another flat out lie, and one which is pushed constantly. Imagine if all bank refused to give you an account because of your sexual orientation. It's the same thing.

[@jordannewitt]

Hey Wisehacks, make an apology for MauLer and Vito please

[@redtiger179]

That would require a level of self awareness that wisecrack seems to have lost...

[@AkaroXIV]

15:25 Liberal professors are fired 4:1 more than conservative professors for political statements, but liberal professors also outnumber conservative professors 12:1. Source:m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/6/liberal-professors-outnumber-conservatives-12-1/ So while you can say that more liberal professors are fired for their political speech, you can *also* say that conservative professors are three times more likely to be fired for their political statements. This is selective manipulation of the facts, and is way more effective than outright censorship because you can tell the truth while lying.

[@Illumirage]

bump

[@gabriellebertrand3054]

This is a good video but I feel like you missed a lot of points regarding the historical government censorship of left-wing/progressive ideas. You mentioned it briefly regarding the Cold War but I feel like discussions of “censorship” completely miss how it disproportionately has impacted people of color in America.

[@richardcarte139]

That’s not true there’s no evidence for that there is no widespread white supremacy. There is no widespread or systemic racism. All the statistics that you look at are all manipulated to serve a globalist agenda. Along with manipulatively edited videos and things of that nature.And everyone is a person of color if a person doesn’t have a skin color than their translucent.

[@davidhochstetler4068]

“I feel”. There very well may be, but “I feel” is not substantive reason or proof. Show some and people will respect your opinion.

[@richardcarte139]

@@davidhochstetler4068 How about the fact that we had a black president for starters. How about the fact that every single time a person, wether they are black or not, wants to provide or even suggest that there isn’t any of those things that they are called racist and not only beaten but sometimes beaten to death. How about the fact that the main stream media never acknowledges that BLM or any of these “peaceful protesters” have become violent and can actually be wrong. Or how about the fact that there are black CEO’s and black billionaires and millionaires. Or the fact that there are black conservatives, black libertarians, black cops and even democrats saying that there is no evidence. All of that is evidence. I never once said, implied nor said anything that would suggest that I came to this thinking out of emotion and it is not an opinion it is a conclusion, learn the difference.

[@FelisImpurrator]

@@richardcarte139 "It doesn't exist because all the statistics are fake" is basically the definition of conspiracy theory. Gotta love anti-globalist ideology. Who needs facts when you can have a persecution complex?

[@davidhochstetler4068]

Richard Carte this was meant at the OP, not you

[@sophieward7225]

Loving the field work bits! It keeps things fresh. Plus it reminds me that, like, the world still exists. Quarantine gets lonely man ;-;

[@coyotefire69420]

Theres a world?

[@ValenWarden]

Oh wow, changing the title of a video to suit your agenda and leaving the creator's profile picture in. That's pretty fucking scummy. And here I thought you guys had some integrity.

[@heinoustentacles5719]

What was it before?

[@tyrantsmisery]

So...why did you blur out thumbnails AND change the video titles of those three youtubers videos? Do you have a particular reason for that blatant lie?

[@YouAintGotNoTegridyBoi]

To misrepresent the people they have a clear bias against. Remember that most philosophers tend to lean towards the left side of the political spectrum as most of them would be considered useless by a right winger which value productivity over "thoughtfulness".

[@Stonegoal]

This reminds me of my grandmother talking. Several mins of talking but nothing productive shared.

[@NickDak1]

You totally changed the title of Vito’s video. Also, he’s not a conservative and it seems like you’re trying to smear him in some regard. I’ve enjoyed y’all’s content but I’m not sure I can watch any more of your videos for the deceptive editing

[@braith117]

Funny thing about the internet companies is that they're not actually free to censor everyone if they value their legal status under the DMCA as a platform as opposed to being classified as a publisher.

[@braith117]

@Jinxed Swashbuckler they're looking at busting up some of the tech giants so I guess that's the next best thing.

[@braith117]

@Jinxed Swashbuckler there's an ongoing lawsuit to break up Facebook over their Instagram and WhatsApp buyouts. Not sure if it's going to get off the ground beyond initial filings, but it's a thing.

[@YoussefE.]

Can we appreciate how good the animations have gotten in this episode?

[@josethebioform7519]

No kidding

[@nikolaos9652]

The sound effects are distracting, though

[@SamHarrisonMusic]

Can anyone identify that study that showed left wing professors were getting fired at the same/higher rate than right wing? x

[@SamHarrisonMusic]

@@npcimknot958 I dont doubt its true tbh - At least in England I was taught a whole lot of shit in school, but never anything about left wing politics. Theyve proposed a law in England now to stop 'anti-capitalist history' being taught in schools. This being Britain, the actual birthplace of socialism with Robert Owen. In the USA you had mccarthyism and the blacklist. As much as people pretend the radical left are a huge problem, I barely see the left represented in media apart from as some kind of evil secret society. I think the western world is as right wing as it has been for a hundred years, I wouldnt worry about teaching kids gender :)

[@freedomofspeech2867]

It doesn't matter. There's like 15 to 1 leftist to right wing professors in US academia. You can barely find any right wing ones to fire anyways, they've all already been fired long ago.

[@freedomofspeech2867]

@@SamHarrisonMusic Stop lying filthy commie.

[@SamHarrisonMusic]

@@freedomofspeech2867 If that's the case, how come all of the US political establishment is right wing? Even Obama voted through tax cuts for the super rich (to appease the republicans), when the economic consensus for years has been that it makes the country poorer. Even the democrats are largely right wing to centrist. I think the US is probably one of the furthest right countries in the world - if there's a bias towards the left in academia, it's probably some well needed balance.

[@freedomofspeech2867]

@@SamHarrisonMusic Because you're fucking delusional.

[@ClickingHeads]

If there's a thousand left-wing channels and 20 right-wing channels of course the per channel basis the right wing channels will get more views. Overall though the left wing channels will get more views because they simply have more ways of watching their content. 19:40 Wisecrack come on man do some research.

[@joeberg3317]

Also note “more left wing professors are fired” suffers from the same issue.

[@iAmTheSquidThing]

Yeah, around 90% of university faculty lean left, so we'd expect more left-wingers to be targets of censorship. That doesn't mean they're more likely to be. This is a classic example of the Bayesian Trap. Having said that, I think it's clear that that universities are trying to purge heterodox thinkers on the right and left. And we should be consistent about rejecting all censorship.

[@punbug4721]

@@joeberg3317 Doesn't say they were fired for political reasons, even. Veeery deceptive.

[@notmegaming9038]

dont be surprised when wisecrack follows the censorship trend in the comments

[@spacecowboy1335]

I hope that’s not the case

[@leehan-yeol7049]

It's not censorship. It's identity groups vying for the Overton window. Free speech is an illusion!

[@dancorwin9232]

I...dont think you actually watched the video...

[@Chronoflation]

Your Joe Rogan argument is a bit out of place. Is there a form of market censorship for people you choose not to present, sure. But blocking content from a host you have already agreed to host and contracted to host exclusively, that's where the problem comes, because the people you outright reject can go elsewhere, but the ones you sign on for exclusivity are legally and financially bound to your decisions

[@ZeteticPhilosopher]

You can argue that it’s different, but it’s still a pretty normal part of market censorship. For example, many journalists and authors are freelancers, but many more must submit their products to a specific publisher with whom they have an exclusivity contract. If that publisher doesn’t like what they have, or decides that-perhaps due to newfangled public dislike of that writer-the person in question is a liability to publish, then authors are often left with little recourse but to wait until their contract runs out. Sometimes they are even barred from using material written during the period they had exclusivity, even though they were not allowed to use it. Market censorship sucks, but it’s pretty normal. We seem to only hear about it when it happens to social media users with large followings, however.

[@Chronoflation]

@@ZeteticPhilosopher Yeah, I just feel like there should be a differentiation between the censorship of someone who has signed on exclusively and one who is simply rejected without the contract to publish. After all, the person who is denied publishing without an exclusivity deal can still go elsewhere or potentially self-publish. The one with the exclusivity deal is contractually bound to NOT self-publish. That is where I see a dividing line, and would consider it to be a sub-group type of censorship. Perhaps you could call one of them specifically market and the other contract. There is the question of if not platforming is the same as removing a platform. I see that as the difference here, and I don't think it's one that should be glossed over, as I think it provides some nice additional context. Mind you, I still really liked the lessons in this video and feel far more educated on different types of censorship, it has just brought to mind these questions for me. A sign of a quality educational video. Just so you don't think I'm just trying to nitpick and be an ass

[@ZeteticPhilosopher]

@@Chronoflation No, I see your distinction, and I think it’s probably a useful one. I do come to a slightly different conclusion though, as I’m probably less concerned about the one screwed over contractee than the denial of a platform to an entire class of ideas. Joe Rogan may have got screwed over, but someone can still parrot what he said somewhere else, keeping the (somewhat) free market of ideas mostly intact. What worries me is more when nobody can reasonably discuss certain issues without their ideas being deplatformed or prevented from having that platform in the first place. Censoring a person just feels less dangerous-and harder to prevent, given that you would need to force the contractee to keep publishing-than censoring an idea.

[@Chronoflation]

@@ZeteticPhilosopher Yeah, I agree. I was thinking of it in terms of published media. I've always acknowledged that a publisher cannot publish everything because then they cannot differentiate themselves or create a focus of content or material. Platforms, unless stated to be for a specific purpose (also a type of censorship, technically) make sense to keep the content "on topic", though I believe that should be approached from the angle of minimal necessary force. Like, a tech website might block political content, but it shouldn't do so when the political content is about the tech or related industries. Then there's the open communication platforms. If your content is about communication, censorship in virtually any form will, by default, be censorship against ideas and violate your own mission statement. For me, I see a distinction there, and it's worth noting. When the term censorship is applied so broadly as to any and all filtration on thought and beliefs, there does need to be sort of system to determine what is necessary for order to exist (staying "on topic") and what is the fine line between creating order and forcing broader controls and censorship of what should be acceptable for said platform. Again, I use my comment about a tech website or blog blocking political content, but having the line of not blocking political content as it relates to the industry. Censorship is actually very complex and nuanced when you really dig into it. That said, I actually disagree about the censoring of an individual, the individual may not be able to be forced to make select content (though their contract may require some output that falls within terms), but the fact that they can't go anywhere else to platform their ideas becomes increasingly dangerous, as it enables companies to remove the voices of people, especially highly influential people who tend to have these more intense and controversial types of discussions on a large platform. I mean, think of it this way, if every time someone got 10,000 followers, they were recruited by any number of companies to publish exclusively for them. If those people are no longer allowed to discuss certain topics, that means nobody with a large enough audience will be allowed to share controversial ideas, and that can affect the grassroots level of ideas when people see that individuals who are the most successful specifically avoid, are unable to speak of, or reject (due to contract) the ideas that they're trying to form. It's a form of population-wide thought control conducted by censoring the voice of the most outspoken, which can lead to some ideas never making it to the marketplace of ideas, or limiting their capacity, at the very least. Though, I'm probably overthinking some of this. It is a very deep rabbit hole of a topic, that's for sure

[@ZeteticPhilosopher]

@@Chronoflation I think the point where we disagree is how nasty it would be if everyone over 10,000 followers was hit with a recruitment letter. A lot of people would refuse to be censored, even if it loses them money. I guess I don’t really have a problem with censorship of people who sign contracts because somebody will always choose not to sign that contract. Furthermore, in a capitalist society, if I have 1 million followers and no contract, somebody will always try to make money off of me, and will eventually offer a contract without censorship to do so. I think it’s ultimately good that truly free speech makes less money than paid speech, since it inherently casts doubt on those with large followings and large bank accounts.

[@AR-vm7tk]

IMHO censorship sucks no matter who does it for whatever motive, if we can't talk out our differences why do we even try living together?

[@bryenveliz9637]

Gonna have to unsubscribe. Purposely misrepresenting videos in order to fit your agenda is not a good look

[@Zippyser]

Idk I think ya'll are too focuses on a clip people wouldn't pay attention to.

[@TheMasterBlaze]

Hoo boy, I wanna' seehow you pull up on changing the video titles to seem more hateful. Not cool bro.

[@calimerohnir3311]

We need a non partisan digital bill of rights

[@surfhappens202]

What?

[@calimerohnir3311]

@@surfhappens202 what what?

[@tylower]

Financial bill of rights too.

[@calimerohnir3311]

@@tylower what would you put in it?

[@sonicgoo1121]

They'll make it partisan. That's how the two party system works now.

[@rockwellporkins520]

Nice potshot at MauLer at 13:22. Noticed you "forgot" to censor his icon while finding the time to disingenuously alter his title from "A Critique" to "the Galaxy Liberals Want"

[@vito]

Intellectual cowardice is easy. Just slander your opponents with literal fake news.

[@alexsmith2910]

It's literally not about mauler.

[@charleslee3676]

Censorship is out of control now. They may not send you to jail for saying something, but saying something online can cost you your job and future.

[@charleslee3676]

Uhh, I need to drink some water.

[@slaplapdog]

Saying something unpopular in public has always had this result, the difference is what is unpopular.

[@absolutesw4gger356]

Are we really gonna pretend that the left gets censored more than the right on social media? 😂😂

[@AdaptiveApeHybrid]

The left and right are mostly neoliberals and the exact same thing Far left and far right get censored, but far right more so, you are right. Though, according to some, far left and far right are essentially the same; they call it the horseshoe effect.

[@neuemilch8318]

​@@AdaptiveApeHybrid i call it the horseshit effect

[@AdaptiveApeHybrid]

@@neuemilch8318 that's pretty clever and funny imo. It's like the further along any extreme one is on, the more full of horse shit they are. I'm stealing this.

[@martinperon4576]

Why in the name of God would you put the Soviet flag on the right end of the political spectrum and the Nazi one on the left end?!

[@badluck5647]

It doesn't matter. The right and left both call one another Nazi's for trivial reasons.

[@GOREDO5]

@@badluck5647 I think thats more of a left thing. calling people nazis and fascists

[@crietzsche]

@@GOREDO5 Definitely not.

[@GOREDO5]

@@crietzsche seriously? all I see is "progressives" throwing the word nazi and facist around so much that those words have lost meaning.