Didn't make sense to bury this in the other thread, this one is significantly interesting in its own right. Thoughts? YouTube Pulls ‘Triumph of the Will’ For Violating New Hate Speech Policy Under YouTube's new policy, Leni Riefenstahl's 1935 propaganda epic had to go. But the decision raises major questions about history and representation. Eric Kohn Jun 6, 2019 YouTube hovers in paradox: It’s a platform for expression that vacillates on the kinds of expression it wants to support. Even when the site makes constructive changes in the content it promotes or prohibits, the outcomes raise questions about censorship and curation. On Wednesday YouTube revealed extensive new policies around hate speech in a move to “reduce more hateful and supremacist content from YouTube,” as the company announced in a blog post. The policy also meant the removal of Leni Riefenstahl’s 1935 Nazi propaganda epic “Triumph of the Will,” which left the site hours after YouTube announced its new standards. After all, “Triumph of the Will” falls under the rubric of “videos that promote or glorify Nazi ideology, which is inherently discriminatory,” as YouTube explains one prohibited category. The movie is also regarded as one with major historical value, raising essential questions about the nature of the film medium. Does it belong in the same category as Lunikoff, a German Neo-Nazi band whose channel also got the boot? Riefenstahl’s harrowing depiction of the Nuremberg Rallies remains an essential look at the ideological power of the moving image, and how it can be co-opted on a mass scale. Despite the film’s aims, it has been taught in universities for decades — and not because film professors hope to advance the horrific mindset of the Third Reich. The movie uses the singular power of the medium to glorify Adolf Hitler in visceral terms: From the moment the filmmaker’s camera advances through the clouds, tracking Hitler’s descent to the rising crescendo of Wagner’s “Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg,” it elevates the rising dictator to god-like stature. Similarly, montages of soldiers saluting their leader — and, later, children in a Hitler Youth parade — illustrate the capacity of the Third Reich to convey the deranged euphoria of subservience. more at the link: https://www.indiewire.com/2019/06/youtube-hate-speech-policy-triumph-of-the-will-1202147879/
Because it folds pretty seamlessly into the social media censorship discussion going on in the other thread.
you've got a significant piece of historical cinema being pulled as "hate speech," which is really very different than the Crowder et al. issue. Plus we have a thousand Trump threads. Why the desire to censor a new thread?
It is a living piece of history that has tremendous importance in understanding history. I don't think anyone can really understand the context of that period of time without watching Triumph of the Will.
It fits perfectly into the topic at hand. YouTube's algorithm is now accidentally hitting historical, educational, and even satirical content simply because it comes into the orbit of Nazi Germany. That is one of the downstream effects of the censorship movement. You get tons of friendly fire/collateral damage.
I used to show part of Riefenstahl's Olympia in class to demonstrate Nazi propaganda on Aryans as opposed to Nazi propaganda on Jews. It was part of reading the graphic novel Maus. Guess I won't do that anymore. . . .
here's what you have to watch out for now as well: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019...ng-hostile-learning-environment-male-authors/
Dude this sounds like a joke, but I had to get reading glasses last year. . . . I truly picked frames to try to make myself look less heterosexual, more bi or gay. For work.
Are we talking about making YouTube a public utility now so we can tell them what they can or can't choose to make available? I thought that kind of talk made conservatives all kinds of upset. I guess the sanctity of the free market only applies when they dont like the result? Here's a hint- You can buy the DVD from Best Buy online for $6.99, or you can buy a permanent digital copy from VUDU for $4.99 if it is that important to you. Or do you now have an Constitutional right to free media content? YouTube is beholden to advertisers to get you your endless free content. Advertisers are extremely adverse to any type of controversy. Free markets, baby.
I do think students get weaponized by a dangerous mix of natural ignorance combined with half-digested social science fervor. Just for some lulz from that University of Utah complaint though: "The professor allegedly said that he will be “retired living in Tahiti surrounded by 40–45 beautiful women” when this happens. When a student asked why he’d picked Tahiti, he reportedly responded that “that’s where most of the available women are, at least from what I’ve heard. I also don’t like the competition on the other islands.”" It is really hard not to become obsolete as a professor, but this dude might not even be trying at this point.
I don't think so. from the sounds of it the student may have used the anonymous online bias reporting mechanism at the school, which is one of the potential risks of such a system
I thought @DonnyMost made a great post about this topic in the other thread (on Alex Jones or whatever). If I followed his argument, youtube (and related providers) have a choice. 1. Clear TOS to hold all users accountable no matter their politics or content preferences. 2. ad hoc decisions about what content is not good for their business, which makes them a publisher in some sense and therefore liable for whatever content appears on their platform. I would think path 1 (and I think Donny thinks this also) is the most sensible and straightforward path into the future.
I'm saying the joke is "Yeah, I'll be in Tahiti surrounded by beautiful women at that point." People can't even recognize a joke anymore.
