The attack on 'free speech'

  • 103 Replies
  • 3197 Views
*

Shifter

  • 18702
  • 2B or not 2B
The attack on 'free speech'
« on: January 13, 2021, 10:49:20 PM »
I've always hated social media and personally couldn't give a damn if Facebook or Twitter were removed entirely. I think society would probably be better off

However this debate around free speech being attacked.... It's nonsense. You join these companies adhering to their terms of service. If you violate their rules, they don't have to have you

It's also fair enough when say Twitter is being used as a megaphone for sedition, violence and upheavel that damages the brand and erodes the very society these people live in that they want to take action. Of course if you're as loud, vocal and hateful as Trump, you are going to draw ire

Trump has not been silenced. He just doesn't have access to a platform that he doesn't own anymore. Even if he made his own servers and his own platform, he still couldn't do the shit he's been doing. Mainly because hate speech and inciting violence is a crime

Free speech has never been free because it comes with responsibility

It's also quite frustrating and literally being an existential threat to see constant disinformation campaigns touted as facts. And truth slammed as 'fake news'. It's about time these companies did take action and label people's posts as BS when it counts

Also I don't get Trumps threat of this 'Article 230'thing as if that would make' free speech' better

Currently, Twitter and Facebook enjoy not being legally liable for content users say on their platforms. Personally I'm with Trump if he wants to remove that protection though. It would absolutely make these companies accountable for the damage their platforms are causing and be much quicker to remove cyber bullying and disinformation etc but what of Trump? How would he have been better off? Twitter/Facebook etc would have banned him long ago due to the risk he would pose

Also I think the Trumps and Trumpers should really know their own constitution. The first amendment does not apply to companies like Twitter or Facebook and it shouldn't. Or do repugnicans want government tentacles reaching and regulating everything in our society?


Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place.

*

Lorddave

  • 16392
Re: The attack on 'free speech'
« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2021, 03:19:40 AM »
Agreed.  I mean, they hug the constitution like the bible but don't know shit about what it says.  (Probably like the bible). Its frightening to see the mass ignorance.  Not even just political opinions but hard facts that Trump just contradicts and no one bats an eye.
I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

JerkFace

  • 11155
  • Looking for Occam
Re: The attack on 'free speech'
« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2021, 04:46:29 AM »
So, can you explain what happens to your "free speech" when section 230 is removed,  and sites like this can be sued for things you post?

If that's how its going to work, then sites like this will become liable for content users post.   Or am I misunderstanding how its works?
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Shifter

  • 18702
  • 2B or not 2B
Re: The attack on 'free speech'
« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2021, 05:07:27 AM »
So, can you explain what happens to your "free speech" when section 230 is removed,  and sites like this can be sued for things you post?

If that's how its going to work, then sites like this will become liable for content users post.   Or am I misunderstanding how its works?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
There's a lot to wade through in here but a small piece
Quote
In June 2020, Hawley and three Republican Senators, Marco Rubio, Kelly Loeffler and Kevin Cramer, called on the FCC to review the protections that the Big Tech companies had from Section 230, stating in their letter that "It is time to take a fresh look at Section 230 and to interpret the vague standard of 'good faith' with specific guidelines and direction" due to the "a lack of clear rules" and the "judicial expansion" around the statute.[98] Hawley introduced the "Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritans Act" bill in the Senate on June 17, 2020, with co-sponsors Rubio, Mike Braun and Tom Cotton, which would allow providers with over 30 million monthly U.S. users and over US$1.5 billion in global revenues to be liable to lawsuits from users who believed that the provider was not uniformly enforcing content; users would be able to seek damages up to US$5,000 and lawyers fees under the bill.[99]

I guess under that proposal this site wouldn't be affected unless we start getting millions of active users and make a shit ton of money

I still don't get how removing legal liability from 'big tech' is going to enhance free speech online. If anything, Big Tech would have to be like China in automatically censoring certain words and banning people for any infringements at the drop of a hat. How else would you police 2 billion active users?

It's bad enough we have the lime censor here. No not the hideous green fruit. The yellow one  >:D



Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place.

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 15835
  • FREEDOIS IS ᗡIИIRG!
Re: The attack on 'free speech'
« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2021, 05:43:30 AM »
Regarding this whole censorship thing, I saw an interesting article that quoted one of the founders of The Pirate Bay, and he was saying how sad and embarrassing it is for Parler and Gab that they are basically too incompetent to be able to keep their sites up.

Oh! Here it is: https://www.vice.com/en/article/3an7pn/pirate-bay-founder-thinks-parlers-inability-to-stay-online-is-embarrassing

It includes a couple pretty sharp jabs:
Quote
“The most ironic thing is that The Pirate Bay’s enemies include not just the US government but also many European and the Russian one,” he said. “Compared to gab/parlor which is supported by the current president of the US and probably liked by the Russian one too."

...

“In all honesty, the reason we did The Pirate Bay was to bring freedom and take back control from a centralised system,” Kolmisoppi said. “The reason that Gab et al will fail is because they're just whining bitches that have only one ideology: egotism. Sharing is caring y'all.”

The Pirate Bay knew they were doing something controversial, and they went to pretty incredible lengths to ensure they had the redundancy necessary to keep their site on the internet when they inevitably ran into people, companies, and governments that wanted to take their site down. Parler and Gab knew they were playing with fire, and due to either laziness or incompetence (or both!) (EDIT TO ADD: also, arrogance. That should be in the prior list. Laziness, incompetence, and arrogance), did absolutely nothing to put together any sort of business continuity plan. Their idiocy isn't anyone else's fault, and it sure as hell isn't everyone else's fault.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2021, 05:46:21 AM by boydster »

*

JJA

  • 4498
  • Math is math!
Re: The attack on 'free speech'
« Reply #5 on: January 14, 2021, 06:21:22 AM »
Oh noes!

How terrible.  Where will violent anti-democratic right wing hate groups go to talk freely and browse their right-wing style porn?

Guess they have to use Gab now.  I should make an account to watch them implode.

https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/parlers-ceo-says-the-app-may-shut-down-permanently-after-getting-booted-from-amazon-web-services/articleshow/80260481.cms

*

Lorddave

  • 16392
Re: The attack on 'free speech'
« Reply #6 on: January 14, 2021, 06:24:35 AM »
Yeah the whole "section 203" is just Trump wanting to sue twitter.  Thats it.  That is all it is.  And he can't see past his own thumbs as to the further consequences.
I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 44369
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: The attack on 'free speech'
« Reply #7 on: January 14, 2021, 08:14:42 AM »
If they got rid of section 230 completely then every website that moderates content would be considered a publisher, and would be subject to liability lawsuits. You'd have the option of not moderating content at all, but I already know what that looks like. A bunch of super edgy trolls dropping the n word in every conversation, and swastikas everywhere!

Gab is really weird. I know a guy who was hired by them to fix their code. They wouldn't let him! Then they defederated for some reason, and I haven't kept up with them since then.

Also, everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that most of the planning for the Capitol riot happened on Facebook, not Parler. There have been no repercussions against Facebook, and I don't imagine there will be. Are they too big to be removed from the app stores? 
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 12702
  • Intelligence Officer
Re: The attack on 'free speech'
« Reply #8 on: January 14, 2021, 08:31:19 AM »
I could be wrong but I get the impression that Parler's ban was preemptive.  They saw a lot of crazy chatter and not much else and figured they'd become the new nexus for maga terrorists.
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 44369
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: The attack on 'free speech'
« Reply #9 on: January 14, 2021, 08:49:46 AM »
The posts on Parler are about the same as posts on /pol and Gab, but they also had lots of more normal content. It's a weird mix. They should start an instance on the fediverse, and spend money on being self hosted.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 15835
  • FREEDOIS IS ᗡIИIRG!
Re: The attack on 'free speech'
« Reply #10 on: January 14, 2021, 08:56:23 AM »
Also, everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that most of the planning for the Capitol riot happened on Facebook, not Parler. There have been no repercussions against Facebook, and I don't imagine there will be. Are they too big to be removed from the app stores?
I don't really understand this either. Maybe it's because Parler is what so many where using to report what they were doing when they were inside? They have some detailed maps of all the places Parler users made it to based on GPS data while they were in the Capitol building. But honestly, I don't know why there would be rage against one social media platform and not another.

*

Shifter

  • 18702
  • 2B or not 2B
Re: The attack on 'free speech'
« Reply #11 on: January 14, 2021, 09:05:48 AM »
If they got rid of section 230 completely then every website that moderates content would be considered a publisher, and would be subject to liability lawsuits. You'd have the option of not moderating content at all, but I already know what that looks like. A bunch of super edgy trolls dropping the n word in every conversation, and swastikas everywhere!

Gab is really weird. I know a guy who was hired by them to fix their code. They wouldn't let him! Then they defederated for some reason, and I haven't kept up with them since then.

Also, everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that most of the planning for the Capitol riot happened on Facebook, not Parler. There have been no repercussions against Facebook, and I don't imagine there will be. Are they too big to be removed from the app stores?

To be clear, I absolutely think Facebook should be in the shit as well. For example with all the talk after the 2016 election and Russian interference etc, no blame seemed to be attributed to Facebook which facilitated it. They also seemed to get away mostly unscathed after the whole 'Cambridge Analytica' scandal.

Facebook is too big, but I don't see that it is cutting back on free speech. I would argue that too much commentary on there goes on unchecked and if it is, its too late and the damage is done. For example that Brenton Tarrant loser who live streamed his mass murder of 51 Muslims inside a Mosque in New Zealand? Facebook.

I never even heard of this Parler thing until a few weeks ago but it seems like it boasted about basically not having a 'hate speech policy' and then it seemed to be quite a popular place for the likes of QAnon (which has been labelled by the FBI as a terror threat) and Proud Boys where countries like Canada thinking of labeling 'The Proud Boys' a terrorist group too, probably America soon to follow. Perhaps Amazon, Google and Apple were seeing the writing on the wall and wanted no part in enabling it (even though they already do lol)

But Facebook is way too big and will never fall foul of the moderators. I dont even use it but it's still part of our life. You want to apply for a job? Your prospective employer can request to have access
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-10/facebook-employers-ask-to-see-profile-page-for-interview/9033722

I suppose if you don't use Facebook vs someone who does, your chance of getting the job is lower because they don't know you as well. It's like society assumes everyone has a Facebook and everyone posts everything going on in their life and every thought that enters their head


Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 44369
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: The attack on 'free speech'
« Reply #12 on: January 14, 2021, 09:33:08 AM »
I don't use Facebook, so I will just link future employers to the Flat Earth Society!
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

Re: The attack on 'free speech'
« Reply #13 on: January 14, 2021, 11:05:20 AM »
Great thread.

Space cowgirl and tom nailed it.

There are those that just parrot the idiots they hear on tv, and then there are the few left who think about it first (before mindlessly parroting it like drones) and realize it's utter horse shit propoganda.

Parler is being crushed because of free speech, and as a message to others with the money and interest in following suit and creating a popuar uncensored and/or anonymous way to communicate.  There is a reason the dials were removed from the radios in north korea - and it is the exact same reason we did it most everywhere else.

Parler (and trump) is legally guilty of nothing (currently, as I write this), and there is no due process, no apeal, no accusation or acuser, no presumption of innocence, no justice of any kind.  Just sentancing and the theft and illegal destruction of private property/business.  I hope to see them prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law - these monopolist slavers think they own the place, and it is up to us to remind them that reality does not bend to their whim and fancy (like they deludedly, vainly, and ignorantly believe)
« Last Edit: January 14, 2021, 11:15:49 AM by jack44556677 »

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 44369
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: The attack on 'free speech'
« Reply #14 on: January 14, 2021, 11:11:47 AM »
Now I want to complain about youtube censorship for a minute. As far as I know, they are pretty good about taking illegal content down, and I don't have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with them banning people who incite violence and that sort of thing. My problem with them is how they've weaponized monetization to control speech. Any channel that discusses topics they don't like, or has political views they don't like faces demonetization. Youtube lies and says the advertisers don't want to be associated with the content, but they put ads on those videos anyway. They just keep all the ad revenue for themselves.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

Shifter

  • 18702
  • 2B or not 2B
Re: The attack on 'free speech'
« Reply #15 on: January 14, 2021, 11:13:05 AM »
these monopolist slavers think they own the place, and it is up to us to remind them that reality does not bend to their whim and fancy (like they deludedly, vainly, and ignorantly believe)

Well firstly, there is not a monopoly, because their are several companies at play here. The word you are looking for is probably 'Oligopoly'

2nd, if Parlor was using Amazons servers, well Amazon certainly does own those servers and if Parler was using them based on an agreement they violated well then Amazon can kick them off and Parler can find another home

The other issue which I think is disturbing is these tech giant billionaires being able to buy up all their competition though. Like Facebook purchasing WhatsApp etc. I think this is an area where the law should prevent these sorts of acquisitions. The consumer always loses


Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place.

*

JJA

  • 4498
  • Math is math!
Re: The attack on 'free speech'
« Reply #16 on: January 14, 2021, 11:13:27 AM »
Great thread.

Space cowgirl and tom nailed it.

There are those that just parrot the idiots they hear on tv, and then there are the few left who thnk about it and realize it's utter horse shit propoganda.

Parler is being crushed because of free speech, and as a message to others with the money and interest in following suit and creating a popuar uncensored and/or anonymous way to communicate that many people use.  There is a reason the dials were removed from the radios in north korea - and it is the exact same reason we did it most everywhere else.

Parler (and trump) is legally guilty of nothing (currently, as I write this), and there is no due process, no apeal, no accusation or acuser, no presumption of innocence, no justice of any kind.  Just sentancing and the theft and the illegal destruction of private property/business.  I hope to see them prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law - these monopolist slavers think they own the place, and it is up to us to remind them that reality does not bend to their whim and fancy (like they deludedly, vainly, and ignorantly believe)

Uh, reality does not bend to your whim and fancy either.

You should join us in the real world where Biden won by a landslide, Trump lost by 10 million votes and people are held accountable for spreading lies and hate and inciting violence and insurrection.

Your comments about Parler are showing your ignorance.  Claiming they are not legally guilty of anything?  Nice dodge, as the Government isn't charging them with any crimes here... Amazon, Google and Apply simply don't want their racist, violent bullshit on their platforms.

And because of free speech, they have every right to tell them to GTFO of their platforms.

You seem to have a serious lack of understanding of the first amendment and the difference between the government and private sector.

I suggest you study up on all of those.

*

Shifter

  • 18702
  • 2B or not 2B
Re: The attack on 'free speech'
« Reply #17 on: January 14, 2021, 11:20:38 AM »
Now I want to complain about youtube censorship for a minute. As far as I know, they are pretty good about taking illegal content down, and I don't have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with them banning people who incite violence and that sort of thing. My problem with them is how they've weaponized monetization to control speech. Any channel that discusses topics they don't like, or has political views they don't like faces demonetization. Youtube lies and says the advertisers don't want to be associated with the content, but they put ads on those videos anyway. They just keep all the ad revenue for themselves.

Definitely this. I'm subscribed to a few channels that no longer speak with the same flair as they used to for fear of being demonotized :( For some people, YouTube is their full time job and some of those videos can take days to create and edit. Only to have it worth nothing because they said one word that you may have gotten in trouble for saying when you were in primary school


Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place.

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 12702
  • Intelligence Officer
Re: The attack on 'free speech'
« Reply #18 on: January 14, 2021, 11:23:21 AM »
Amen to that.  The discourse on youtube has lost it's edge under pressure to disneyfy it.  It's very disturbing.  Youtubers are censoring curse words for fuck's sake!
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

*

JJA

  • 4498
  • Math is math!
Re: The attack on 'free speech'
« Reply #19 on: January 14, 2021, 11:27:22 AM »
Now I want to complain about youtube censorship for a minute. As far as I know, they are pretty good about taking illegal content down, and I don't have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with them banning people who incite violence and that sort of thing. My problem with them is how they've weaponized monetization to control speech. Any channel that discusses topics they don't like, or has political views they don't like faces demonetization. Youtube lies and says the advertisers don't want to be associated with the content, but they put ads on those videos anyway. They just keep all the ad revenue for themselves.

Definitely this. I'm subscribed to a few channels that no longer speak with the same flair as they used to for fear of being demonotized :( For some people, YouTube is their full time job and some of those videos can take days to create and edit. Only to have it worth nothing because they said one word that you may have gotten in trouble for saying when you were in primary school

YouTube and Facebook both have a huge problem with this.  YouTube is far worse as it can kill your career if you trip some algorithm or get someone vindictive to file a bunch of copyright claims, or Disney notices you.

I'm not even sure how to solve it, as they have to have some control over their content so people don't post child-porn or other clearly illegal videos, and have to remove anything else that could get them sued, but have too much content to ever look at with a human.  It has to be 99% automated.

But currently they lean HEAVILY on the "just blap anyone that gets flagged" and are crapping all over the little guys in favor of big corporations. That part they could fix, if they wanted to.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 44369
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: The attack on 'free speech'
« Reply #20 on: January 14, 2021, 11:48:16 AM »
Saying the word "sex" will get your video demonetized!
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

JJA

  • 4498
  • Math is math!
Re: The attack on 'free speech'
« Reply #21 on: January 14, 2021, 11:54:57 AM »
Saying the word "sex" will get your video demonetized!

Context? Who got demonetized for simply saying "sex"?

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 12702
  • Intelligence Officer
Re: The attack on 'free speech'
« Reply #22 on: January 14, 2021, 11:58:44 AM »
I believe PhilosophyTube had a few videos demonitized for discussing sex.  I recall one he did on prostitution where he forwarded by saying it's a foregone conclusion that that particular video would be demonitized.
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 44369
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: The attack on 'free speech'
« Reply #23 on: January 14, 2021, 12:03:57 PM »
Blaire White bleeps out the word "sex" "pedo" "pedophile" etc when talking about those subjects. 
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

JJA

  • 4498
  • Math is math!
Re: The attack on 'free speech'
« Reply #24 on: January 14, 2021, 12:04:16 PM »
I believe PhilosophyTube had a few videos demonitized for discussing sex.  I recall one he did on prostitution where he forwarded by saying it's a foregone conclusion that that particular video would be demonitized.

Having an entire video on prostitution is a BIT more than simply saying the word "sex".  Lots of companies would rather not be associated with that subject.

Also remember that YouTube doesn't just outright ban videos that have mature content, they put them into the 'adult' class and some advertisers may choose to have their ads shown on those videos, and some choose not to. 

It's a lot more complicated than saying the word "sex" once and getting demonetized completely.

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 12702
  • Intelligence Officer
Re: The attack on 'free speech'
« Reply #25 on: January 14, 2021, 12:06:21 PM »
The thing is the video I mentioned is not at all salacious.  It's a discussion of prostitution from a lot of different perspectives.  It's something you can almost show as an educational video.
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

*

JJA

  • 4498
  • Math is math!
Re: The attack on 'free speech'
« Reply #26 on: January 14, 2021, 12:08:31 PM »
Blaire White bleeps out the word "sex" "pedo" "pedophile" etc when talking about those subjects.

That's just an example of her avoiding using words, not the same.

Did she get a video demonetized simply because she used the word "sex" in it? Which video?

*

JJA

  • 4498
  • Math is math!
Re: The attack on 'free speech'
« Reply #27 on: January 14, 2021, 12:10:19 PM »
The thing is the video I mentioned is not at all salacious.  It's a discussion of prostitution from a lot of different perspectives.  It's something you can almost show as an educational video.

It being salacious or not doesn't matter.  YouTube simply allows advertisers to opt out of mature content.  Some companies don't want to be associated with anything adult, regardless if it's in good taste or educational.

I don't actually find a problem with that.  It's when edge cases occur that it's an issue, as they simply don't spend enough money on customer support to resolve issues.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 44369
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: The attack on 'free speech'
« Reply #28 on: January 14, 2021, 12:20:05 PM »
Why do you need the specific video in order to have the conversation? Youtubers started bleeping the words so they wouldn't get demonetized when discussing these topics. These same topics are discussed on TV with advertisers not minding at all. You're being weird (as usual).

The advertisers aren't opting out of these videos. They don't give a shit about most of it, especially considering a lot of it is tamer than what you'd watch on TV. Youtube still puts ads on these videos, they just don't share the revenue with the content creators.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

JJA

  • 4498
  • Math is math!
Re: The attack on 'free speech'
« Reply #29 on: January 14, 2021, 12:28:28 PM »
Why do you need the specific video in order to have the conversation? Youtubers started bleeping the words so they wouldn't get demonetized when discussing these topics. These same topics are discussed on TV with advertisers not minding at all. You're being weird (as usual).

The advertisers aren't opting out of these videos. They don't give a shit about most of it, especially considering a lot of it is tamer than what you'd watch on TV. Youtube still puts ads on these videos, they just don't share the revenue with the content creators.

I'm not being weird, you are being dramatic and I'm calling you on it.

I need a specific example because you made a specific claim:

"Saying the word "sex" will get your video demonetized!"

That simply isn't true as far as I can find.  If your video contains mature subject matter then YouTube will only place ads on that video that have been approved for adult videos. You still get paid for those ads.

Demonetizing your video for saying words is very much something YouTube does, and has to do if they don't want to get sued or charged with crimes.  I agree this is a huge problem due to their "shotgun and forget" approach.  But they don't just demonetize your video because you said "sex" once.