YouTube Will 'Protect Free Expression' By Pulling Back On Content Moderation (arstechnica.com) 128
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: YouTube videos may be getting a bit more pernicious soon. Google's dominant video platform has spent years removing discriminatory and conspiracy content from its platform in accordance with its usage guidelines, but the site is now reportedly adopting a lighter-touch approach to moderation. A higher bar for content removal will allow more potentially inflammatory content to remain up in the "public interest." [...]
Beginning late last year, YouTube began informing moderators they should err on the side of caution when removing videos that are in the public interest. That includes user uploads that discuss issues like elections, race, gender, sexuality, abortion, immigration, and censorship. Previously, YouTube's policy told moderators to remove videos if one-quarter or more of the content violated policies. Now, the exception cutoff has been increased to half. In addition, staff are now told to bring issues to managers if they are uncertain rather than removing the content themselves. "Recognizing that the definition of 'public interest' is always evolving, we update our guidance for these exceptions to reflect the new types of discussion we see on the platform today," YouTube's Nicole Bell told the New York Times. "Our goal remains the same: to protect free expression on YouTube while mitigating egregious harm."
Most of the videos hosted on YouTube won't be affected by this change, the company says. "These exceptions apply to a small fraction of the videos on YouTube, but are vital for ensuring important content remains available," a YouTube spokesperson tells Ars. "This practice allows us to prevent, for example, an hours-long news podcast from being removed for showing one short clip of violence."
Beginning late last year, YouTube began informing moderators they should err on the side of caution when removing videos that are in the public interest. That includes user uploads that discuss issues like elections, race, gender, sexuality, abortion, immigration, and censorship. Previously, YouTube's policy told moderators to remove videos if one-quarter or more of the content violated policies. Now, the exception cutoff has been increased to half. In addition, staff are now told to bring issues to managers if they are uncertain rather than removing the content themselves. "Recognizing that the definition of 'public interest' is always evolving, we update our guidance for these exceptions to reflect the new types of discussion we see on the platform today," YouTube's Nicole Bell told the New York Times. "Our goal remains the same: to protect free expression on YouTube while mitigating egregious harm."
Most of the videos hosted on YouTube won't be affected by this change, the company says. "These exceptions apply to a small fraction of the videos on YouTube, but are vital for ensuring important content remains available," a YouTube spokesperson tells Ars. "This practice allows us to prevent, for example, an hours-long news podcast from being removed for showing one short clip of violence."
Business as usual (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Content that is sensational, inflammatory or controversial gets more attention and that generates more money. It is that simple. Eventually, when Youtube's profit's aren't as high as they want them to be, there will be no restrictions on content that is posted.
This is also about trying to mitigate against a threatened federal lawsuit about content moderation (i.e. bending the knee).
I think you're missing something (Score:2)
The advertisers seem to be okay with all that now and Google doesn't particularly care about touching off violence it seems.
That is a huge huge shift from even just 6 months ago. And it's not going to end well for any of us.
Chilling (Score:2)
Emboldened lunatics inbound.
They are already so unhinged and disconnected from reality that I'm to the point of being incapable of fielding an argument that even I find cogent.
https://imgur.com/gallery/nath... [imgur.com]
Re:Chilling (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends. Keeping lunatic conspiracy theories off is good, but what Youtube has done historically just hasn't worked.
Just mentioning "pandemic" during COVID was problematic you people would say things like "the panorama". "Pedophile" gets censored so people say "PDF file". We have an entire generation of kids coming up unironically saying that someone got "unalived" because Youtube would block or demonetize based on the word "killed" or "murdered".
And its not on Youtube but I ran into the same thing in an article comments section about ozempic. In a comment section about injected weight loss medication I couldn't use the words "drug" or "shot" without it flagging the comment for "violating community guidelines".
The concept of "advertiser unfriendly" *words* needs to go, and if this does that I'm all for it. Moderation needs to be based on the entire context not just specific 'no no words". Also sometimes you need to present the dumb content in order to debunk it. When you declare a certain viewpoint so taboo that it can't even be acknowledged for the sake of telling people how stupid it is, then that doesn't prevent its spread.
Re: (Score:3)
Keeping lunatic conspiracy theories off is good, but what Youtube has done historically just hasn't worked.
Not in a small part because what YT called a conspiracy theory ended up an actual conspiracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, there are lots of conspiracy theories with some truth to them, but the challenge is to filter out the ones that are unsubstantiated or have been disproven. Even if a theory ends up being confirmed, it doesn't help discourse if people were spreading uninformed guesses as truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Says the person who believes in conspiracy theories.
Which conspiracy are you talking about? (Score:2)
Is there an actual documented conspiracy where we have the people involved in admitting to it like the above ones that YouTube has been banning videos over?
Re: (Score:2)
You’re going to have to be more specific.
Re: (Score:2)
The concept of "advertiser unfriendly" *words* needs to go, and if this does that I'm all for it.
Why would the concept go? Isn't a business's job to meet the needs of the customer? The advertisers are the customer. You on the other hand are just a product. Why would anyone care what you think? How much did you pay Youtube last month?
YouTube has a pretty large subscription service (Score:2)
But if you bought a subscription to YouTube you are either hardcore into cat videos or you're paying for one of their sports streams. Or maybe the YouTube TV or YouTube music stuff.
That said they do need to worry about turning off viewers. Queer people in particular are important because they have a lot of disposable income since they have fewer children and they only have them when they really want them.
On the other hand trans people make
Re: (Score:2)
"And its not on Youtube but I ran into the same thing in an article comments section about ozempic. "
You can probably thank the ubiquitous content moderation platform OpenWeb for that, which exists to defend Israel, and does it so poorly that Israel's own defenders constantly complain about having their posts deleted.
As for youtube, shortlt after october 7th people even had to censor the word zionist in comments to not have their shit hidden away under the "most recent" filter. It's so easy to see which way
So that wasn't censorship per se (Score:2)
What it sounds like to me is that they are going to pull back on outright banning some content. Specifically transphobia. They will probably also test limits of racism filters...
That's different than demonetizing content they don't like. At least with demonetization the content still exists. Jimquisition basically has every single video demonetized and survives off patreon and the like. But I can count on
Time for an update on the Jonathan Joss case (Score:1)
SAPD: No evidence of hate crime in actor Jonathan Joss’ killing [expressnews.com]
Starting with their ads (Score:1)
The Youtube ads are starting to get down right trashy. If Youtube wants to make money on ads then someone aught to vet the damn things first.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that their frequency is exploding. I often see three or more on a video that's less than half-an-hour long.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen eight-minute videos interrupted by a five-minute ad block.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not just trashy but scammy!
I've been reporting YT ads for their "scams and deceptive practices" and all I get is... nothing.
Even on X @teamyoutube simply says "Thanks for bringing this to our attention — we'll pass this along & handle all the next steps from here" yet, weeks later, the same scam ads continue to run.
Nothing buys immunity from the TOS more than an advertiser's wallet.
Re: (Score:2)
"Thanks for bringing this to our attention — we'll pass this along & handle all the next steps from here" yet, weeks later, the same scam ads continue to run.
Jokes on you; there are no "next steps", except maybe passing it along to /dev/null.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Starting with their ads (Score:2)
The Youtube ads are starting to get down right trashy.
You should see the ones on slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
The Youtube ads are starting to get down right trashy.
You should see the ones on slashdot.
You are paying too much for car insurance.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately ublock origin is still managing to block slashdot ads. Every once in a while I'll get a message about html-load.com not working but not often. Whoever is behind html-load they are slimy and dishonest, and shame on slashdot for buying into them.
Believe it when I see it (Score:1, Troll)
Hopefully this applies to the comment section too. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... using certain (fairly innocent) words. When those people include that word, the post is consistently removed, while other people are allowed to use it.
Which fairly-innocent word(s)?
Re: (Score:2)
> while other people are allowed to use it
Depends what your social credit score is.
They won't tell you the number but they have one for you.
"Welcome to Anti-Costco: I hate you." (Score:5, Insightful)
They're doing what almost all large corporations do, which is to make claims to political neutrality while in fact opportunistically triangulating their political posture to please the autocrats in power while evading charges of complicity by pretending to be acting on moral principles. They know that a certain segment of their customers, employees, users, and society at large will see through this tissue-thin facade to the amoral void underneath. But it won't affect their business in any significant way, because most people just want to continue to use their products in the way to which they've been accustomed. If their new, lackadaisical level of societal responsibility ends in disaster, they'll shrug and dishonestly claim that nothing could have reasonably been done to avoid this.
The phrase "recognizing that the definition of 'public interest' is always evolving" is a dead giveaway, or it would be if anyone outside the usual malcontents were actually paying attention. Ethical principles that "evolve" on the cadence of a presidential term are no principles at all, of course. They've as good as announced that their God is the saliva-moistened finger they're holding up to test the political winds of the moment.
Re: (Score:3)
They're doing what almost all large corporations do, which is to make claims to political neutrality while in fact opportunistically triangulating their political posture to please the autocrats in power while evading charges of complicity by pretending to be acting on moral principles..
That is political neutrality. They will suck up to anyone, regardless of ideology. What could possibly be more neutral than that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They will suck up to governments that they believe will punish them if they do not suck up to them.
That's what I said. Good of you to agree.
Re: (Score:2)
They allow Alex James and Tucker Carlson on, so they are definitely not politically neutral, nor removing misinformation and propaganda. This was about keeping their paying customers (advertisers) happy by avoiding 'impolite' topics. Now, they want enforcing political correctness to cost less.
I've definitely seen a cultural shift, social interaction has changed from ego-stroking pissing contests, to 'world owes me' rants over personal grievances. As a social media (online publishing) platform, Youtube ha
In the public interest (Score:2)
or in the profit interest?
Re: (Score:2)
You have to ask? Talk about naive...
Re: (Score:2)
If they act as a censor/publisher they're likely to lose their S. 230 protections which could potentially bankrupt them.
Is that what they're claiming? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. My take is they fear the lawsuits, because content moderation on YouTube does not actually work.
Just about the bottom line (Score:1, Troll)
YouTube knows they can capture some of that fox news crazy talk and monetize it, all they have to do is ensure their bull shit conspiracies can find a home.
Thank you Rumble (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You mean fascist-central? Yep, that will keep until it all burns down. As it has done several times before. Fascism is not stable and cannot be stable. Decent people look at Rumble and turn away in disgust.
Re: (Score:2)
"Decent people look at Rumble and turn away in disgust."
That's some brain-dead thought control. Literally any competitor to youtube would be considered such by virtue of right wingers being pushed off the primary platform and onto it. Peter Thiel was involved in funding it, but take a look at what google does for the security / surveillance state and realize there is no moral high ground within the paucity of options for video platforms.
It blows my mind how libs don't see themselves simultaneously pushing f
Re: (Score:2)
Have you looked at the hate-fueled, anti-human crap that you can find on Rumble?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there is awful shit there. there's some real racist crap on youtube too (albeit less due to moderation), but there are also a lot of creators who have a leg in both because the last few years have seen an uptick in overboard moderation on the part of google and they don't like the prospect of waking up one day with all.of their content gone. I still primarily use youtube but the answer isn't a cultural war against people who use rumble, that is misguided. I extend this example to other (generally laugh
Re: (Score:2)
Good to know the smooth brains are consolidated in one place. If I ever want to know the finer details of the “deep state” or real uses for ivermectin the I’ll be sure and pay rumble a visit.
What to expect (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't use Twitter much. But one of these days I accessed it and was impacted by a tweet urging "white christian people to rise up in arms and make America white again." I reported it, only to receive a response the next day stating they haven't found anything wrong with the post.
So, that's the state of things and what we may expect with other social media now.
Of course, some will say I can simply not use social media if that kind of speech bothers me. But let's be honest: simply pretending you don't see i
Retaliate against people who abuse moderation (Score:2)
YT should do two things here, and this would probably save them a lot of grief:
1. Do a 3 strikes, you're out on false flagging content within the same year.
2. Adopt a policy that users caught organizing a brigading attack on content providers will be doxxed to the content creator at Google's discretion.
Horseshit (Score:2)
Ok, YouTube... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> policies against "harmful content"
If you're watching your perfectly legal home video library you're not watching ads on YouTube.
This content is harmful to their profit motive.
The problem with letting Nazis in your bar... (Score:2)
... is that now you're a Nazi Bar.
Just like Twitter.
There are no Nazi bars unless everyone else leaves (Score:1)
The "Nazi bar" trope is clever in order to conceal its inaccuracy. First, letting people speak their minds never took over any place unless every other place was censored and this gave them only one place to run. Second, if you want to avoid Nazis on Twitter, it is easy enough. Third, you run the risk of something worse than Nazism, the most destructive system ever created, Communism, once you start speech-policing.
The Censorship-Industrial Complex (Score:1)
Over the past couple decades, as people warned, our security services have turned from defending against foreign threats to enforcing false unity through government censorship [censorship...omplex.org] implemented by private firms:
Facts about Israel allowed now? (Score:2)
Is the censorship of discussing facts that make Israel sound kind of bad gonna be gone?
Cause that type of shit is infuriating. YT comment censorship essentially turns everything into a platform for Zionists calling for ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. And anyone who disagrees has their comments disappeared.
Re: (Score:2)
> And anyone who disagrees has their comments disappeared
I mean, it's a literal conspiracy to ethnically cleanse an area of a population, and you're not allowed to talk about conspiracies.
But, yes, it's lessening up - I see in my recommended a Redacted news report with Senator Johnson talking about a new Congressional investigation into the 9/11 coverup, which we know is a real conspiracy.
The part about Saudi funding came out a few years ago but there's much more that's still "classified". Which is weir
Youtube dropouts (c) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But they were not paid to riot (Score:1)
Where the new LA riots [x.com] were funded by Communist billionaires.
Re: this will last until the democrats return (Score:3)
Re:this will last until the democrats return (Score:4, Informative)
Indeed, but them matching one or several definitions of fascism does make them fascist. Let's take the criteria used by Laurence W. Britt (2003) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
1. "Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism"
2. "Disdain for the importance of human rights"
3. "Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause"
4. "The supremacy of the military/avid militarism"
5. "Rampant sexism"
6. "A controlled mass media"
7. "Obsession with national security"
8. "Religion and ruling elite tied together"
9. "Power of corporations protected"
10. "Power of labor suppressed or eliminated"
11. "Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts"
12. "Obsession with crime and punishment"
13. "Rampant cronyism and corruption"
14. "Fraudulent elections"
Apart from maybe 6. and 10., one could easily find examples of each item.
Criteria by scholar John R. McNeill (same Wikipedia link above) have also been applied; while Trump failed the 2016 assessment, he did pass it in 2020 https://www.dailykos.com/stori... [dailykos.com]. And that was 2020, but now in 2025 Trump is getting through the roof on McNeill's criterion "12. Chaotic administration".
Some commenters highlight that the goal of fascism would be "government by the corporations for the corporations", everything else being a means to achieve the goal. And the proximity of Zuckerberg and Musk with the highest power have shown this criteria is already easily applied.
In another take, just observing Jan. 6 strikingly reminds of the October 1922 March on Rome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] which is what literal fascists do. Of course the Trump supporters even failed their March on Washington, as they are too disorganised to even succeed at being fascists. Or as McNeill noted in 2016, "Trump is a loser" [at fascism].
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Zero doubt they are fascists. But fascists are failed human beings that see being fascists as _desirable_.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, but them matching one or several definitions of fascism does make them fascist. Let's take the criteria used by Laurence W. Britt (2003
Laurence W. Britt made his definition with the purpose of insulting Bush. I fully support that purpose, but it is not backed by science in any way.
In the modern era, calling someone fascist is an attempt to insult, not describe. And that is what you are doing, too.
Re: (Score:2)
And that is what you are doing, too.
We might have differing views on what an insult is. Calling someone "stupid" is an insult. Pointing at random people in the street an calling them a fascist in a way to diminish their credibility is or can be an insult. But calling a public figure a fascist (or other political words) based on facts and opinions, has been judged *not* an insult in my area, even when the qualification itself was wrong (or say "debatable").
I am not using fascist as an insult here, implying people should not to vote for Trump
Not a fascist (Score:1)
Disqualified on 3, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, and 14.
Trump is a 1960s Democrat slash 1980s Reagan Republican.
It's just that the Left drifted so far to the Left that they cannot recognize the middle anymore!
You also might want to read up on The Doctrine of Fascism [gutenberg.org] which is basically Communism for libertarians:
Re:this will last until the democrats return (Score:4, Insightful)
Your comments are basically True Scotsman all the time, and a few whataboutisms.
1. "fascist" is certainly debatable, but "nationalist" is not. It's very consensual to call Trump a nationalist. I'm not saying it's bad, I'm just saying it's a fact.
2. 5. 11. True Scotsman: These aren't real intellectuals, these aren't real human rights, these aren't real minorities.
9. The criterion does not require them to be successful
8. whataboutism. Yeah maybe the whole WASP history matches this one criterion. That fascism includes religion does not mean other movements cannot also include it independently.
12. whataboutism. It does not matter what BLM does, we're only assessing Trump here.
14. Referring to the case of Trump calling a governor to find a few more votes.
These criteria have not been established by me, they have been established by intellectuals in the field who study American politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Guy in a buffalo suit is pretty a pretty mild description of people attempting to break into secure rooms where elected officials were cowering. Or are you one of those morons who claim Ashley Babbit was peaceful. Of people breaking into Senator's offices and stealing "mementos".
Or you know, building a gallows and chanting "Hang Mike Pence".
Re: (Score:2)
Guy in a buffalo suit is pretty a pretty mild description of people attempting to break into secure rooms where elected officials were cowering. Or are you one of those morons who claim Ashley Babbit was peaceful. Of people breaking into Senator's offices and stealing "mementos".
Or you know, building a gallows and chanting "Hang Mike Pence".
You must have missed the parts where the police were escorting and opening doors for him, chatting with him, shaking hands with him, and praying with him as he led them in a prayer and thanked them
Re: (Score:2)
I did miss that. Does any video exist?
Here’s Andrew Clyde screaming in terror at the mob. https://www.yahoo.com/news/rep... [yahoo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I did miss that. Does any video exist?
Here’s Andrew Clyde screaming in terror at the mob. https://www.yahoo.com/news/rep... [yahoo.com]
That's a photo, not a video, and Andrew Clyde says otherwise
Re: (Score:2)
Oh good, so if he says otherwise then that photo I just saw clearly doesn't exist. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Jesus, you people will say anything...
Re: (Score:2)
"riot". Or protest partially turned violent (because, you know, 99% of people who were there remained peaceful). And please piss off with your conspiracy theories over how that guy in a buffalo suit was supposedly an actual threat
The 1922 March on Rome also was a riot, and whether to call it a coup is debated (like Jan. 6). Main objective of 1922 fascists: "Impress the liberals" (according to Wikipedia; quite fitting as well in 2025). Main visible characteristics in 1922: horned helmets ups no sorry, it was "black shirts".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are nominally BOTH, but have lowered in ranking on both criteria recently.
* Republic = elected leaders, and diluted powers into a multiplicity of elected leaders. Centralisation of powers into one hand, by getting around other elected leaders, is the enemy of a Republic.
* Democracy= doing your best to politically represent all of your country. For example, that will also include Trans people, and for another example it requires to implement policies on Diversity and Inclusion such to better politically
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The Administration needs to arrest these people, Chris Murphy and Maxine Waters are clearly well into the inciting a riot, if not insurrection territory. Trump ought to just charge them!
But what would be the point? If the Administration arrests these people Trump will just pardon them like he did with everyone else committing an insurrection. Sounds like a waste of time.
Re: (Score:2)
(Posting as AC, because I know Israel is a sensitive topic in the US.)
yes, we know. just for curiosity, could you provide a sample link of anti-zionist propaganda?
btw, some interesting facts from chatgpt:
us vs rest of the world:
Monthly Viewers: 238million vs 2.2–2.4billion
% Global Viewers: 9–10% vs 90–91%
YouTube Channels: 1.78million vs 58+million (est.)
Total Videos Uploaded: Est. 1.4–2 billion vs 13.4+billion (of 14.8B)
% of Total Videos: 10–12% vs 88–90%
Videos Removed (Q4 2023): 788,000 vs
Re: (Score:3)
btw, some interesting facts from chatgpt:
Let me correct that: "btw, some interesting numbers from chatgpt:".
Re: (Score:2)
They ban videos showing someone screwing on/off a silencer these days.....it didn't used to be this strict....
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
"btw, some interesting facts from chatgpt:"
Let me stop you right there,
1.) No one cares about your opinion.
2.) No one gives a shit what your retarded cat hallucinated today.
If your not capable of searching and showing your own work, fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
i don't think those numbers are hallucinated since they were consistent in several more detailed answers, and corroborated by deepseek. then again all such numbers should ofc be always taken with a grain of salt and it seems good enough for a rough cursory estimate.
btw, i don't give a flying fuck about your opinion either, specially as you come across as a prepotent jerk with no substance in the brain, but that doesn't mean i have to express myself as a prepotent jerk with no substance in the brain would to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
3000 years? Israel has only existed as an independent country since 1948.
Re: (Score:2)
3000 year old clash of cultures when Muslims have only been around for 1,400 years and Israel well under a century.
You don't even understand the basics of this conflict, how on earth are you judging other's opinions on it?
Re: (Score:2)
Goliath wasnt a Muslim because Muslims didnt exist until the 7th century. Or are you referring to the clash of cultures between the Jews and the Philistines? Not a very modern or relevant reference.
Re: this will last until the democrats return (Score:2)
There were no Jews in 1000 BCE by even the most generous estimate. There were Canaanites, who are the ancestors of Palestinians and Jews; Midians, who probably worshipped Yahweh; Egyptians were complaining about "hibirews" (which meant something like barbarian); but no Jews - a semitic people practicing something like Temple Judaism. Best archeological evidence we have only dates back to about 400 BCE, while some textual critical analysis put it around 800 BCE.
Re: (Score:2)
Your post is so factually wrong, that I can only conclude you are intentionally ignorant, desiring mainly to insult the current residents of the area (as opposed to being interested in the facts of the matter
Re: this will last until the democrats return (Score:2)
Israel was not founded by Jews. It was founded by Canaanites, a polytheistic semitic ethnicity. Jews - a semitic monotheistic ethnicity - did not appear until later. The founders of Israel are genetically more closely related to modern Palestinians than to Jews. So, if you are talking about a clash of cultures, you have to fast forward to when the ethnicities diverged with the introduction of monotheism, which was later.
Re: (Score:1)
"Even YouTube's humans don't want to be drawn into moderating a 3000 year old clash of culture"
Bullshit. This isn't a "clash of cultures", that is a cowardly mischaracterization albeit a common one. This is colonialism. People of all three religions existed there side by side until the establishment of the settler colony. Israel is suicidal and serves only to endanger Jewish people, arming fascist dictators all over the world. Read up
https://nitter.poast.org/Hasan... [poast.org]
You see far more anti-zionist content bec
Re: this will last until the democrats return (Score:2)
Yeah, Palestinians weren't attacking Jewish settlers when they were buying land under British Mandate Palestine. It's only when they decided to stop paying for the land that problems started in the modern era.
Ironically, the stated reasoning for a Zionist state - a largely British movement - is that Jews cause trouble wherever they go, and so Europe should kick them out.
You gotta go back to the crusades to find any real clash of cultures that resonates today, and the Jews at that time sided with the Muslims
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans never want to hear from the dems, doesn't matter what they talk about. Antisemitism is rampant on the right and just an excuse they use to silence those on the left. As for kids, I assume you mean some whacko conspiracy theory about molesting them and draining their blood? Most of the country doesn't subscribe to that sort of nonsense
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Nobody wants to hear from Dems at the moment, but that can easily change if they clean up antisemitism
As opposed to the literal fascists in the current administration? Because fascists have historically always clamped down on antisemitism.
Re: this will last until the democrats return (Score:2)
In other words... (Score:1)
Ha, so in other words if Democrats "clean up" all of the massively exaggerated and made up shit put on them by culture warrioring idiots they can become culturally relevant again. What a laugh.
Does "leaving kids alone" include molesting kids in pizza parlors in Oregon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] by any chance?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If we are this easily tricked by moral panics I don't think as much chance of us surviving the next 20 years let alone the next 1,000.
Please don't confuse the human race with advertisers not wanting anything morally vague associated with their product. The human race will be just fine, and largely trigger free.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you really are a failure as a human being. Impressive, but not in a good way.
Wow an actual Nazi dog whistle. (Score:2)
Dude it's 2025 do you really think you can say cultural Marxism and not have us figure out that you're a nazi? You need to come up with some new dog whistles. Or maybe you don't things are really going to shut out there...
Re: (Score:2)
And we'll all learn to goose step and everyone will be the same or else.