Endorse ? Did you just use the word "Endorse"

Yes, look it's right there.

They are not endorsing anything.

They are recommending I watch something I never asked to see, they are endorsing those clips.

No, what you're suggesting is censorship.

I'm not, what I wrote should be clear: If you are providing search results, what turns up should be on the person searching. When you recommend something, you wear that recommendation. That's not about censorship, it's about responsibility. I know a terribly old-fashioned concept. Ever heard of it?

If I'm interested in hearing commentators talk about how Jussie Smollett might have staged a hoax, I don't want Youtube to start being creative and suggest to me CNN panels about how we need to believe Jussie and that this attack is a result of the President's rethoric.

Yes, You should be able to look for what you want to see, using some relatively transparent search algorithm. Not have things thrust in your face based on what the social media corporation (via whichever opaque algorithm they decide on or otherwise) thinks you should watch without owing up to it. But maybe this isn't obvious to you because the algorithms are already delivering the not-so-suppressed voices you want to hear?

Youtube's job is not to "guide my opinion" towards their selected narrative.

They already do, you may have noticed the recommend videos? The question is whether they will be made to take responsibility for guiding your opinion.

To adopt AC's metaphor from below, I'm not, as AC believed advocating these publishers saying "we just removed card from the catalog and stored book behind shelf of other books." I'm advocating making it very easy to find the card in the catalog you want to find. It's your responsibility what you look for.

If however the librarian picks a book off of the shelf slaps it on the desk in front of you and tells you "you really should read this," the librarian is vouching for the book.

If we did things your way, whate'd all be Flat Earthers

Obviously not. And wasn't there recently a study that showed that the rise in flat earth believers is primarily due to YouTube's recommendation algorithm? Ergo, if these algorithms are working as designed, they need a redesign.

Oh, so you recommend system where "it is not censored", we just removed card from the catalog and stored book behind shelf of other books. But .. you can still find it ...

Obviously not. Try reading the comment that the above was the erratum to.

Umm, soz ... suboptimal caffeine levels. Erratum:

There's a gulf of difference between actively censoring arguably unsavoury messages, and refraining from guiding viewers' eyes towards them.

The issue here is not telling people they aren't "allowed to be interested in something," the issue is about which messages particular social media companies should endorse via their recommendations. There's a gulf of difference between actively censoring arguably unsavoury messages, and guiding viewers eyes towards them.

If you are providing search results, what turns up should* be on the person searching. When you recommend something, you wear that recommendation. [*the commercial interests of the search providers notwithstanding].

are these images 'copyrighted' as that they are generated

That's an interesting legal-theoretical question and it might make a good topic for a law school essay.

As a matter of mere practice, however, given that no two runs of the program should produce identical faces, it seems unlikely that anyone would even think to look for a watermark (assuming there is one) or other identifying feature connecting the image to the the putative copyright holder. TLDR: You're unlikely to be caught.

Socialism creates a system in which everyone cares about the decisions that other people make.

It may indeed, but care cannot automatically be converted into mandating behaviours.

Socialized medicine, for example, takes everyone's money and spends it on the group's health costs. I, as a dedicated taxpayer, now care when idiots start smoking - I have to pay for their cancer care, and I feel cheated by the poor decisions of others. It is only natural, in this scenario, that I should feel that people should be prevented from smoking in order to eliminate this unfair burden upon me

Really good example. So what might happen is that pressure builds for anti-smoking policy, which causes a rapid decline in the rate of smoking and your concern that the health dollar is being misspent results in not only your own health, but the health of the public in general improving. This has been the experience in Australia, where we do have a first rate public health care system, which incidentally no politician, left or right, who hopes for election would dare threaten to remove.

the system has set me up to make decisions for what others do to their own bodies

Well democratic socialism (and I'm hoping the majority of socialists by now accept the need for democratic socialism) wouldn't allow you to make any actual decision by yourself. It might indeed set you up to have an interest in what other people do with their bodies, and if you were joined by enough non-smokers who share your concern, your combined democratic power could affect the law, which may in turn constrain what other people do with their bodies, sure.

This is de facto slavery

And you were doing so well up to then ... sad. No, de facto slavery is when you get others to work for your profit without reasonable recompense above their basic keep. This is much more like having laws against abortion when enough of the population decide women should be compelled by law to carry a pregnancy to term and force their view through the legislature.

As with all democratic systems what is perhaps required is some legal constraint on how far the law can impinge upon the autonomy of the individual (eg a Bill of Rights). Your interests in what others do may be increased in a socialised, but your ability to realise those interests to the detriment of others, as with any other exercise of power public or private under any other system, can be controlled by the application of law. That's what the Law is.

Yeah sure, but 74% of users don't realise their interests are tracked? I can believe 74% didn't know how to access that particular page, but seriously ...

I hate to break it to you but Australia is mostly desert.

Not relevant. I'm addressing the claim that "[r]oughly 10 years ago a high profile Australian scientist did a TV interview and stated that it may never rain again in the Australian outback (sic)." Do you have any citation to prove that? (Also I think you'll find that "Sydney and the Warragamba catchment" has not been declared a desert at this stage.)

I'm only 44 years old ...

So you still wet behind the ears, son. But also not relevant. How does the fact that your experience of Australian climatic conditions is less than mine establish the claim that "[r]oughly 10 years ago a high profile Australian scientist did a TV interview and stated that it may never rain again in the Australian outback (sic)?" [HINT: It doesn't.]

I can tell you right now that farmers have been complaining about droughts and floods continuously for as long as I've been alive.

Well no shit mate. That's not really surprising if, as is claimed, S.E. Australia were experiencing a continuous ratcheting up in frequency and severity of drought conditions. But guess what? That's still not relevant to the claim that "[r]oughly 10 years ago a high profile Australian scientist did a TV interview and stated that it may never rain again in the Australian outback (sic)!"

There's nothing more Australian than ...

FFS sunshine, can you bottle it already? The issue here is that trying to pin that outrageous claim on Flannery is complete bullshit, and you know it. Nor is all your irrelevant blathering going to make it anything other than bullshit . End of story!

Roughly 10 years ago a high profile Australian scientist did a TV interview and stated that it may never rain again in the Australian outback [sic].

That's not actually the truth is it? (Though I'm liable to be convinced otherwise by a citation from a reliable source).

I'm presuming you are talking about Tim Flannery. Here is the transcript of that infamous TV interview. So here is what he actually said, that has widely been quoted as "it will never rain again":

So "roughly 10 years" later, how is the drought situation in Eastern Australia panning out ... this even from the Murdoch press, speaks to its seriousness.

[T]he vaccine is of zero benefit to him because he has no cervix

Well ... perhaps not zero benefit. He does have a throat I take it.

Which is in no way to disagree with your actual point, that this, and imo many other vaccines, ought to be freely available, where your argument should be irresistible.

It's a pretty convincing hoax too. China has invested trillions into renewables and cleaner tech.

Well that's virtue signalling in its most literal, technical (signalling theory) meaning then.

Stop typing until you get there

Nobody can get beyond what you actually wrote, if you refuse to correct or clarify it.

That point, absent any further clarification, must reasonably be taken to be, that a written constitution would have protected against the possibility of Brexit. For the reasons I explained above, you were wrong.

In most of the world, regardless of civilised or not, slavery is not connected with race

A little tangential, and not directly pertinent to the use of master/slave terminology in tech but ... I'm not too sure about that specific claim. Slavery is, at least connected with race in many instances. Historically, from the ancient world up to the African slave trade of the C18th, slavery was commonly imposed upon an ethnic other.

It is true that in some cultures slavery/freedom is governed, for example, by cast or by criminality, rather than by race, (or even under conditions of societal breakdown, imposed on seemingly random fellow "citizens,") but that seems more to be the exception. Slaves in Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, Scandinavia were usually either directly prisoners of war or taken from colonised peoples. Today the quasi-slavery of Phillipino workers in the middle East, the capture of sub-Saharan refugees in North Africa continue this tradition. Nor should we assume that some of the modern African slavery, which appears on the surface to be taking place between same-race parties, is entirely devoid of ethnic considerations.

Race is perhaps not invariably a factor --most obviously in modern-day sex based human trafficking --but the fact that ethnicity is, across time and geography, so very often been used to demark citizen from slave, and most especially in economies where slavery was central to lawful production (ie. unlike the illegal sex trade) suggests that race division at least facilitates slavery. It is perhaps of psychological importance, allowing the masters more easily to dehumanise the slaves, or simply to remove the fear that they too may be reduced to the condition of slavery.

I do not want my peripheral subsystems being incited to rise up against their masters

In which case you should endorse this change of terminology ... after all the worse that could happen after the name change is that your peripheral subsystems will be incited to rise up against the primary control system. ;)

Your response doesn't address the points I was making.

So what were "the points" you were making, and what reasonable connection might be drawn between "a random 50%+1 poll" and the lack of a written constitution?

Instead, it is recycled pap that anybody in the UK could have recited 10 years ago

Obviously not. In 2008 none save legally astute clairvoyants might have commented specifically as to the legal significance of the 2016 Brexit vote.

You did not understand my comment.

If that be so, you plainly need to work on your written expression. Try a bit harder in your next comment, and also at least make the semblance of an attempt at a substantive rebuttal (i.e. play the ball). "You did not understand what my comment" ... "just shows you didn't comprehend it" ... deployed without even a hint as to what was misconstrued, or even some tangential engagement of the matter at hand, comes across as a rather desperate ad hominem I'm afraid. I'm sure you can do better.

[Y]ou're going to need to finally figure out what is supposed to be in your Constitution and write it down so that all your rights can't be changed with a random 50%+1 poll.

Unless that written constitution were to include an article specifically requiring European membership --which constitutes a great deal more than "figuring out" and "writing down" what the Law is --the existence, or not, of a written constitution is irrelevant. The "poll" was just that: it has no legal significance and as such is not something which a constitution generally might affect. This was simply a political party running with an election promise, "we will poll you on this issue and do as you say." Since that party was thus elected to power; remains in power, and given the great expense of the exercise, and most importantly the perception (whatever the constitutional reality) of majority of the population that they expressed their democratic will, it is politically unthinkable to ignore the result. Politically unthinkable, not legally impossible.