Community discussions

[WillBot3000]

I see you removed my request that the original poster post some examples of neo-nazi, anti-semitic propaganda that he claims was on Truthtube TV. I saw no examples of this when I looked.

Your forum policy forbids making defamatory statements. Why is it okay to accuse someone of being/promoting/supporting Nazism and anti-semitism? 

These types of baseless accusations are thrown around often nowadays by people who want to prevent people from expressing views they disagree with. People make these types of accusations about channels on YouTube all the time. If you banned the TruthTube TV channel are you going to ban YouTube as well?

[optikhog]

Why would you guys buy products from companies which (your words) "support anachist violence, more H1B Visas to steal jobs from Americans to get cheap labor, and support the dirtiest of organizations, such as NATO, the WTO, and China itself."?

Sounds like since you guys seem to know all about such things, you might be smart enough to spend your money elsewhere and not have to worry so much about it rather than having to waste your time complaining in a forum where like 15 other people will really ever see your posts.

[musicbrain]

Don't refer to us as "you guys".  We comprise a tiny percentage of people.  The rest are stock market players who could care less what the company is doing in these areas, or even approving because they are of the same disgusting mindset.  And the consumers?  They know next to nothing about what these companies are doing to the US economy.   Your criticisms are ridiculous, and it sounds like you simply want to antagonize, and such posts and mindsets don't deserve this reply.

[optikhog]

Not sure how I was criticizing, and saying "you guys" is certainly not derogatory, unless you would prefer I use "persons such as you who post such things"?

I asked a simple question - why would you buy something which is created by a company which you believe somehow supports ideals which you vehemently disagree with?

[Natale]

Hint this is Merica !!!! You know land of the free and home of the brave !!!! Grown up's just change the channel !!!! If you are a grown up just change the channel ,you don't have to watch !!! Maybe you should tell us all the channel's that upset you !!!! And that way we can all make sure that those who wants to watch can and the ones that don't like that stuff can avoid those channel's !!!! See, not that hard !!!!! 

[StreamerUser]

---

@Natale wrote:

Hint this is Merica !!!! You know land of the free and home of the brave !!!! Grown up's just change the channel !!!! If you are a grown up just change the channel ,you don't have to watch !!! Maybe you should tell us all the channel's that upset you !!!! And that way we can all make sure that those who wants to watch can and the ones that don't like that stuff can avoid those channel's !!!! See, not that hard !!!!! 

---

Well at least this is America (not sure what "Merica" is, seems to have lost a vowel somewhere..) in common global vernacular.

As such (with freedom and liberty, at least for now) we can:

1) "change the channel" grown up or otherwise, as one has the freedom and liberty to see fit..or

2) Not "change the channel" AND comment upon/criticize the content, as one has the freedom and liberty to see fit...or

3) "change the channel" AND comment upon/criticize the content, as one has the freedom and liberty to see fit...or

2) Not "change the channel" grown up or otherwise, as one has the freedom and liberty to see fit..

All of these options are currently available, in legal principle at least - some folks however, prefer that some of these options not exist/be chosen (by others at least), and question those that specifically exercise them, and would prefer that "corporate principle" applied filters/limited the options (as long as the "corporate principles" are aligned with their's agenda-wise....)

[atc98092]

Yes, this is America. We have a constitutional right to freedom of speech. However, that doesn't mean a platform such as Roku, Fire TV or others are required to carry material that is not considered acceptable by their published terms of use. So can send a letter to the editor of a newspaper or online site. But they are under no obligation to publish it. If some content on Roku was telling blatant lies or disinformation that are easily verifiable, then they are within their legal rights to remove such material. Same goes for Facebook and other online discussion groups. The people pushing that sort of material are free to develop and pay for a web site of their own, but other providers don't have to partake in its dissemination. 

[boogernose]

OH BOY!!!! Hate speech

Which channels are those?

Truthfully I think when you try to suppress Free Speech and Thought you only aggravate

the situation. Its better to simply ignore them. There is already a rating system to keep minors

from seeing stuff parents deem inappropriate. The more you overtly suppress free speech

the more people will want to listen Thats the way children especially behave. Its Human Nature.

Ignore it. There is a ton of stuff I dont watch because I think its pathetic.

[fluke]

I think both atc98092 and boogernose make constructive point of views on this.

I would like to point out some things:

(1) It isn't fair to compare content on Facebook and an app on Roku.  The content that is posted to Facebook is served from Facebook's own servers.  The objectional channel's content is not stored on Roku's equipment.  Instead, the channel store had a script for how to reach the content.  The video content went direct from a non-Roku server to the customer's own Roku device.  The degree to which Roku is pro-actively monitor *ALL* of this content would be prohibitively expensive.

(2) The objectional content appears to still be available on YouTube.  I'm not going to back my claims by pointing to it or giving the name of the YouTube channel because I rather not highlight it.  Roku has no method to filter only individual YouTube channels.  They can either continue to allow Google to have a YouTube app on the Roku store or remove it *all*.  Keeping it probably is the best balance of the positives over the negatives, even if YouTube does have misinformation/hate speech despite it's own mission statement.

(3) As to Roku attempting to have a rating system to keep minors from seeing inappropriate content, it appears to be largely self-regulated.  As far as I can tell (anyone from Roku, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), the developer of the usually decides for themselves what the rating it.  Roku may provide guidance to some Roku app developers but I'm guessing that the majority of channels are rated by the channel owners themselves.

(4) Misinformation is going to continue to be a major problem regardless of what large companies do.  Trying to stop it at a platform level will continue to be an issue of wack a mole.  However, ignoring it does not seem to be working either.  To some extent we need to help promote the truth for each other.  Discovery channel has a "shark week" that makes dumps a lot of information on viewers.  There are numerous articles that point out how there is exaggerations and misinformation included.  Should Roku ban all of Discovery Go?  I don't think so.  But if a friend or family member re-iterate something that is wrong, let them know that things like shark week are for *entertainment* value and some things are not credable claims.

(5) I personally recommend to others to do a Google search for the "media bias chart."  Several of the providers listed on the chart are available on the Roku channel store.  Knowing the leanings of different sources can be helpful in understanding what to expect.  There is other sources for getting guidance on information (for example: Snopes) and each person should decide what they consider to be right and share with others.

(6) If you press * on an installed channel on Roku (from the Roku home screen), you are giving two options related to this issue.  One is you can rate the channel.  Second, you can go to "Give us feedback" which includes "I find this content offensive."  I believe Roku does act when they get feedback from multiple owners about a channel that is misleading or hate speech.

(7) It seems this will become an important issue for congress soon with what is called "The EARN IT Act."  There is claims that more could be accomplished with a law that is overly broad and vague on what must be done to resolve it.  If this issue is important to you, feel free to write your state representives in congress about your own stance for or against the EARN IT Act.

[33Censorship33]

Roku censorship of Alex Jones and Infowars is criminal. I will never buy a Roku again. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DECISDE WHAT CONTENT I CAN OR CANNOT ACCESS OFF THE INTERNET ROKU! YOU SUCK!