Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 241
  1. #51
    wrong about pizzagate TSA's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    20,548
    I didn't say you did. But you brought up a slippery slope argument referencing a troubling future where such a stink would be warranted. It is not warranted at this time, so this thread is silly.
    You sure about that?


  2. #52
    Veteran SpursforSix's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    21,158
    Compared to YouTube.

    You bet your ass I'm laughing at you.
    Keep moving those goalposts away from your ignorance. You clearly didn’t understand the word. It’s OK.

  3. #53
    Veteran SpursforSix's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    21,158
    It's not Orwellian because it's not government.
    Do you need a definition of Orwellian?

  4. #54
    Still Hates Small Ball Spurminator's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Post Count
    37,144
    You sure about that?

    I don't expect a sweeping change in policy to avoid temporary collateral damage. I doubt Fischer's plight is permanent.

  5. #55
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    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?

  6. #56
    6X ST MVP
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    81,091

    YouTube and Twitter don't want that on their services. I don't blame them.
    They don't want what ? Be specific.

  7. #57
    non-essential Chris's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    39,908
    Terrific insight:


  8. #58
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    even a regular joe like me has been locked out of my twitter account twice simply for retweeting.

  9. #59
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    43,429
    Chris.

    How much of a nuisance do you have to be for twitter to notice and ban you for bot-like behavior. rofl

  10. #60
    Believe. Pavlov's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    41,752
    Keep moving those goalposts away from your ignorance. You clearly didn’t understand the word. It’s OK.
    of course I did.

    What exactly are you ing about here?

    What exactly do you want to happen now?

    Do you need a definition of Orwellian?
    Nope. If you're afraid of YouTube, I don't know what to tell you.

  11. #61
    Believe. Pavlov's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    41,752
    They don't want what ? Be specific.
    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.

  12. #62
    Veteran SpursforSix's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    21,158
    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.
    Right out of the Chump playbook.

  13. #63
    Veteran SpursforSix's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    21,158
    So you agree with me when I say YouTube can control the content on their service.

    Now what?
    So it's OK for YouTube to control the content on their service but not Ok for the ISPs to do the same?

  14. #64
    Believe. Pavlov's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    41,752
    Right out of the Chump playbook.
    I usually get to a point where the person doesn't want to answer simple straightforward questions and just complains, yes.

    So it's OK for YouTube to control the content on their service but not Ok for the ISPs to do the same?
    talk about goalpost moves. Is this your playbook?

    But don't ISPs already legally block websites?

    What are you trying to say?

  15. #65
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    So it's OK for YouTube to control the content on their service but not Ok for the ISPs to do the same?
    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.

  16. #66
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    But don't ISPs already legally block websites?
    If the Dems fold (likely) on blocking "hard" network neutrality, then ISP will be blocking websites, which I'm sure rightwingnutjob assholes will approve

  17. #67
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    Knock on: how does removing the ads from Crowder's YT channel limit his speech?

  18. #68
    Veteran SpursforSix's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    21,158
    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.
    As I’ve said, I don’t disagree with that.

  19. #69
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    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?

  20. #70
    Veteran SpursforSix's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    21,158
    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.

  21. #71
    Veteran SpursforSix's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    21,158
    Do you think YT is limiting the Steven Crowder's speech by removing the ads on his channel?
    So...no...I don't think demonetizing Crowder's videos is limiting his speech.

  22. #72
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    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.

  23. #73
    Veteran SpursforSix's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    21,158

    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.

  24. #74
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    All solid points.I would add that Google/FB/Apple cooperate with LE as if they were common carriers.

    Backdoors like AT&T?

  25. #75
    6X ST MVP
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    81,091
    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.
    So laissez faire good now.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •