Keep moving those goalposts away from your ignorance. You clearly didn’t understand the word. It’s OK.
You sure about that?
Keep moving those goalposts away from your ignorance. You clearly didn’t understand the word. It’s OK.
Do you need a definition of Orwellian?
I don't expect a sweeping change in policy to avoid temporary collateral damage. I doubt Fischer's plight is permanent.
So, how is slurring at gays on youtube a conservative value, and how is it censorship to remove ads from Crowder's YT channel for doing it?
Does Steven Crowder have a right to make money on YT's platform even when he breaks the rules he agreed to when he set up his account?
They don't want what ? Be specific.
Chris.
How much of a nuisance do you have to be for twitter to notice and ban you for bot-like behavior. rofl
of course I did.
What exactly are you ing about here?
What exactly do you want to happen now?
Nope. If you're afraid of YouTube, I don't know what to tell you.
It's whatever they don't want. They can be as specific or as unspecific as they want to be about it.
What do you want to be done about this? Be specific.
Right out of the Chump playbook.
So it's OK for YouTube to control the content on their service but not Ok for the ISPs to do the same?
I usually get to a point where the person doesn't want to answer simple straightforward questions and just complains, yes.
talk about goalpost moves. Is this your playbook?
But don't ISPs already legally block websites?
What are you trying to say?
Crowder limited himself contractually in the TOS agreement. YT's right to revoke monetization was part of that agreement. Again not aure how harrassing gays online is a protected political viewpoint or even a specifically conservative one.
Bottom line: YT doesn't owe anyone a living. Bad on you if you didn't read the TOS before you signed them, it's a legally binding contract.
If the Dems fold (likely) on blocking "hard" network neutrality, then ISP will be blocking websites, which I'm sure rightwingnutjob assholes will approve
Knock on: how does removing the ads from Crowder's YT channel limit his speech?
As I’ve said, I don’t disagree with that.
Do you think YT is limiting the Steven Crowder's speech by removing the ads on his channel?
I don't know...let me read the story.
So...no...I don't think demonetizing Crowder's videos is limiting his speech.
There are a few nodes of conflict here.
One is that social media platforms thrive on engagement.
That means fake news, misleading, overhyped , obscene, offensive and otherwise inflammatory content will be intrinsic. Ad revenue depends on it. YT would be hurting its business model if it limited all the content viewers find offensive across the board.
For better and for worse, it's not technically feasible for YT and other major digital platforms to control content in a consistent or comprehensive way. Bans/demonetization/suspensions will always be ad hoc (complaint driven).
Are YT/Twitter/FB public accomodations/utilities, or are they private companies? Is it preferable for them to regulate their own content or for political power to do that for them --- I know which side of that I fall on, YMMV.
Sure, I'd rather companies regulate instead of government. But I'm not sure that they're completely separate from each other. Google has received massive funding from the government and also spends massive amounts of money for lobbying, academic research, etc. They (and other) big corps. also influence policy. And as we're seeing with China, it seems that they're willing to bend to governmental pressure for access to a market.
All that being said, government oversight would mean very little imo. We can look to the damage that BigPharma, BigAg, and BigFinance have done with government oversight.
All solid points.I would add that Google/FB/Apple cooperate with LE as if they were common carriers.
Backdoors like AT&T?
So laissez faire good now.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)