Cannabis Ruderalis

Content deleted Content added
MacheathWasABadBadMan (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
MacheathWasABadBadMan (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 76: Line 76:


== Another sanitized article? Really? ==
== Another sanitized article? Really? ==
This article goes out of its way to pretty up and deflect from the most egregious and widespread forms of censorship by Google and YouTube, and downplays the scope and scale. It reads like a damage-control "preemptive" article written by Google staff tasked with gaslighting and pseudo-justification. Somewhere out there -- surely? -- there's a real, sincere article that honestly addresses the controversial, rampant bias and censorship. This ain't it. This is synthetic propaganda. The editors ostensibly never even heard of the word "bias" as applied to Google. Furthermore, the word "controversial" cannot even be found applied to Google in this article -- it's projected onto content that was removed. This is another example of why astute people refer to echo-chambers and gaslighting, and search elsewhere for perspective and facts.[[User:MacheathWasABadBadMan|MacheathWasABadBadMan]] ([[User talk:MacheathWasABadBadMan|talk]]) 22:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
This article goes out of its way to pretty up and deflect from the most egregious and widespread forms of censorship by Google and YouTube, and downplays the scope and scale. It reads like a damage-control "preemptive" article written by Google staff tasked with gaslighting and pseudo-justification. Somewhere out there -- surely? -- there's a real, sincere article that honestly addresses the controversial, rampant bias and censorship. This ain't it. This is synthetic propaganda. The editors ostensibly never even heard of the word "bias" as applied to Google. Furthermore, the word "controversial" cannot even be found applied to Google in this article -- it's projected onto content that was removed. This is another example of why astute people refer to echo-chambers and gaslighting, and search elsewhere for perspective and facts. [[User:MacheathWasABadBadMan|MacheathWasABadBadMan]] ([[User talk:MacheathWasABadBadMan|talk]]) 22:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:59, 17 February 2022

WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Catwilsonaz.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simple English stub

I've just created it. {{enwp based| url=http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google&oldid=203990 }}

Google and Voat

I am a bit surprised that I can't locate voat.co on Google at all, regardless of search terms, and even including site:voat.co. Is this domain specifically blocked by Google; has it been documented anywhere? 2A00:23C5:FE0C:2100:7D2D:6BB1:AF7F:AB70 (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

voat.co shut down its servers and most of the users went to poal.co 2003:E4:870F:E300:C05C:5D56:1BF4:EE91 (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2020

Please change "In September 2018, Google has removed" to "In September 2018, Google removed". I'm pretty sure that its a spelling error, but correct me if I'm wrong. 71.62.186.68 (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. It would either be "In September 2018, Google removed..." or "As of September 2018, Google has removed..." In this case, since it appears to be talking about a single event rather than an ongoing event, the former seems correct. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

147 Words Secretly BANNED on Youtube (Full List)

Full list of youtube-google secret censorship that didnt mentioned at all in their enormous detailed policies. maybe somebody have guts to add it on the page? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-2OT4G6_eU Sergey Woropaew (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

googling this "147 Words Secretly BANNED on Youtube (Full List)" leads to reddit but reddit has banned the full list too. 194.207.86.26 (talk) 08:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neither YouTube or Reddit are considered reliable sources, so to add this information you will need to find a reliable source. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please add Smart Voting censorship

[1]109.252.201.66 (talk) 10:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dislike button

On November 10, 2021 the YT announced that it will hide a number of dislikes of videos. I propose to mention this. See also [2], [3] and Official Video AXONOV (talk) 08:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sources that specifically call it censorship? Otherwise, I doubt we could, or should, mention it. I'll look more later, but so far I've found this, however the website may not be an RS, according to some of the discussions I have seen about it's use. INDT (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there may be no WP:RS. I won't insist if none is provided by someone. Regards. AXONOV (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would not consider that censorship either, unless RS's state otherwise. However, I am shocked that this information isn't on Criticism of YouTube, where it definitely belongs. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@InfiniteNexus: Yup. Feel free to move this discussion to the Talk:Criticism of YouTube page if none minds. I also suggest to use tags like {{moved}} and {{moved from}}.--AXONOV (talk) 07:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agree about adding this to Criticism of YouTube, almost every source I have seen has either called the move heavily controversial, or directly criticised it. INDT (talk) 07:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 medical misinformation policy

Google has published terms of service that allow them to take down videos that "spread" misinformation about COVID-19: [4]. There is plenty of abuse cases to find out I'm sure. It would be hard for a third party to verify fairness of policy application. AXONOV (talk) 09:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020-2021 censored and banned list?

We need add a list of people both conservative and liberal who have been censored on youtube and google since the 2020 election, when they started blocking search results and banning for "mis-information", even when the information proves true -Jf (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another sanitized article? Really?

This article goes out of its way to pretty up and deflect from the most egregious and widespread forms of censorship by Google and YouTube, and downplays the scope and scale. It reads like a damage-control "preemptive" article written by Google staff tasked with gaslighting and pseudo-justification. Somewhere out there -- surely? -- there's a real, sincere article that honestly addresses the controversial, rampant bias and censorship. This ain't it. This is synthetic propaganda. The editors ostensibly never even heard of the word "bias" as applied to Google. Furthermore, the word "controversial" cannot even be found applied to Google in this article -- it's projected onto content that was removed. This is another example of why astute people refer to echo-chambers and gaslighting, and search elsewhere for perspective and facts. MacheathWasABadBadMan (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply