Nazi Punch - Youtube bans inherently discriminatory videos

[Heathen Hammer]

And ypu have proof for this claim right? Oh wait.....

People and media agencies being removed within days from all platforms for wrongthink, alt-tech platforms competetive with big tech from silicone valley get booted from app stores, etc.

Hey your the one saying those business have no right to deny anyone service and should be extremely regulated and controlled by the government. Not me

Again, not letting corporate entities make political decision that affect society isn't socialism. We don't let industry CEOs determine environmental regulations either, I guess this is socialism too?

If it was an oligopoly. But you don't have proof for that nor proof for collusion.

See above.

Its only your opinion that they even are harming society. You don't have a right to a platform. No one is going to be forced to listen to you

So as it was pointed out above, you just are okay with corporations determining what can be said because you agree with their bias.

[mongrel]

People and nmedia agencies being removed within days from all platforms for wrongthink, alt-tech platforms competetive with big tech from silicone valley get booted from app stores, etc.

Why don't these racists,jihadis, mysogynists and vaxxers, for that is what these people are, stop begging Paypal and Patreon money for their anti-social rantings and get proper jobs?

[alhoon]

Huh? telephone company can't deny you service.

In the free world, they can. Your socialist propaganda is flawed.

Some companies may be forced to provide you service if that would put your life in danger. Like shutting off your heat in Alaska during winter ~> you die. And that's BTW leftwing policy.

You see... socialists are not evil. They often say things that make sense like "the government should regulate that private comnies can't force 4 year old kids to work for 14 hours for 2$ per hour". That's a product of socialism you know against the wishes of the robber barons of the early 20th century.

Other times, Socialists say complete crap like "the government should dictate to a private company that shows videos on the internet on what to allow in their platform."

this has nothing to do with socialism, it just makes sense to recognize companies like that as public utilities. No need for them to have a right to deny anyone service based on imaginary criteria.

So... in effect nationalizing companies that simply show videos or putting strict government oversight on them, has nothing to do with socialism? You are wrong.
If USA government went to TWC and demanded we followed certain rules, it would be government regulation.
You simply have to understand that socialism is not "everything I disagree with" but a set of things and policies that you may partially agree or disagree with.

...as long as it doesn't violate discrimination laws.

Those are another good example of well-needed government regulation \ socialism-is-not-necessarily-evil.

If PC goes insane, it is bad, but that's how you apply the anti-discrimination laws that makes it flawed.

Again, not letting corporate entities make political decision that affect society isn't socialism. We don't let industry CEOs determine environmental regulations either, I guess this is socialism too?

It is.

We don't let industry CEOs determine environmental regulations either, I guess this is socialism too?

Environmental regulations of businesses are of course socialism.

ALL kinds of regulations on businesses are leftwing HH.
The law that you can't blackmail your employees to vote for a certain party or lose their jobs, environmental regulations, Trump's Tariffs, Trump's efforts to force companies to hire Americans instead of legal migrants, minimum wages, paid maternity leave, etc.
EVERY KIND of government regulation of private businesses, whether you agree with it or not, is left wing policy.

[Aexodus]

I don’t get you Alhoon. Government regulation was not invented by Karl Marx. Regulation is not socialist.

[Heathen Hammer]

You see... socialists are not evil. They often say things that make sense like "the government should regulate that private comnies can't force 4 year old kids to work for 14 hours for 2$ per hour". That's a product of socialism you know against the wishes of the robber barons of the early 20th century.

Basic rules and regulations aren't socialism. Necessity to prevent corporate entities from exerting major political power over society is hardly anything remote to nationalization of such entities and were implemented by capitalist governments in capitalist societies (while typically in socialist countries workers enjoy no rights and are worked to death, i.e. USSR).

[Facupay]

I believe some people in this thread still have a simplistic, Cold War-esque view of politics and just using a single spectrum of left-right leads to mistakes.
For example Nazis were extremely heavy on statism and regulation but also right wing as culturally. Who is more right wing, a Nazi or an Anarcho-capitalist? it depends: do you mean right wing in the cultural sense of wanting to protect tradition, your nation, and other conservative values? Then the Nazis, or do you mean "right wing" in the economic sense of wanting to protect free market capitalism from state meddling in whatever way? Then the Anarcho-capitalists. Either way commies are going to hate you.

You shouldn't analyze political views on a single spectrum or you'll fall into these kinds of problems.

IMO the easiest and minimum tool to use seriously is the two axis political compass with conservative-progressive and liberty-statism (I prefer to have 3 axis with freedom, culture and economic equality but whatever).

In the two axis political compass Nazis are very conservative and very statist, socialists are very progressive and very statist, anarcho-communists are very pro liberty and very progressive, etc.

Most people however are not in the extremes of those two spectrums but somewhere in the middle. Personally I'm more conservative-leaning and I rather value individual and market freedom but I believe the state can and should intervene in certain situations in the name of public good.

Back to this case, if this had happened in 2006 I would be completely against the idea of forcing Youtube to accept people it does not want in its platform because not only did they have a ton of competition from similar pages but they weren't as relevant when considering media as a whole. It would have been unnecessary and therefore unjust to limit their freedom of enterprise.

Fast forward to 2019 and it's a whole different picture, YT not only rules internet video market but is giant for media as a whole, especially when you consider younger people. However the most dangerous situation is that the same happens with most social media sites where a handful companies control everything and if you get simultaneously banned form Youtube, Facebbok and Twitter you are an internet media corpse as I said earlier. Personally I'm not that far in the freedom spectrum to be comfortable with handling corporations such power to control information channels and discourse and I believe you have reasonable arguments to defend the idea that the state can regulate them in the name of freedom of speech, plurality of ideas and to curtail potentially dangerous oligpolistic corporate power in general.

[mongrel]

I believe some people in this thread still have a simplistic, Cold War-esque view of politics and just using a single spectrum of left-right leads to mistakes.
For example Nazis were extremely heavy on statism and regulation but also right wing as culturally. Who is more right wing, a Nazi or an Anarcho-capitalist? it depends: do you mean right wing in the cultural sense of wanting to protect tradition, your nation, and other conservative values? Then the Nazis, or do you mean "right wing" in the economic sense of wanting to protect free market capitalism from state meddling in whatever way? Then the Anarcho-capitalists. Either way commies are going to hate you.

You shouldn't analyze political views on a single spectrum or you'll fall into these kinds of problems.

IMO the easiest and minimum tool to use seriously is the two axis political compass with conservative-progressive and liberty-statism (I prefer to have 3 axis with freedom, culture and economic equality but whatever).

In the two axis political compass Nazis are very conservative and very statist, socialists are very progressive and very statist, anarcho-communists are very pro liberty and very progressive, etc.

Most people however are not in the extremes of those two spectrums but somewhere in the middle. Personally I'm more conservative-leaning and I rather value individual and market freedom but I believe the state can and should intervene in certain situations in the name of public good.

Back to this case, if this had happened in 2006 I would be completely against the idea of forcing Youtube to accept people it does not want in its platform because not only did they have a ton of competition from similar pages but they weren't as relevant when considering media as a whole. It would have been unnecessary and therefore unjust to limit their freedom of enterprise.

Fast forward to 2019 and its a whole different picture, YT not only rules internet video market but is giant for media as a whole, especially when you consider younger people. However the most dangerous situation is that the same happens with most social media sites where a handful companies control everything and if you get simultaneously banned form Youtube, Facebbok and Twitter you are an internet media corpse as I said earlier. Personally I'm not that far in the freedom spectrum to be comfortable with handling corporations such power to control information channels and discourse and I believe you have reasonable arguments to defend the idea that the state can regulate them in the name of freedom of speech, plurality of ideas and to curtail potentially dangerous oligpoloistic corporate power in general.

Not when it comes to harmful material, or are forum members expecting media companies to cease co-operation with the police where other dubious or criminal activities such as the exchange of toddler porn, animal cruelty, encouraging terrorism, harassment and so forth.

[Facupay]

Not when it comes to harmful material, or are forum members expecting media companies to cease co-operation with the police where other dubious or criminal activities such as the exchange of toddler porn, animal cruelty, encouraging terrorism, harassment and so forth.

I agree completely with you, these media platforms have a duty to remove and fight against content that by itself constitutes criminal activities as defined by the applicable laws.

That is why I worry so much about Crowder's arbitrary demonetization as his content was not criminal in any way. It's a very troubling precedent.

[alhoon]

I don’t get you Alhoon. Government regulation was not invented by Karl Marx. Regulation is not socialist.

Marx was a communist and that he coined the phrase doesn't mean certain practices aren't leftwing because they existed before we decided to group them up as "leftwing".

Government regulations, even the ones instituted by Hammurabi (which I doubt anyone can call socialist or leftwing) are now under the umbrella of leftwing policies. It's government regulation means it's not rightwing and it is leftwing.
Anarchocapitalism is far rightwing economically. I think as far as it gets.
USSR "work public employees to the death" is leftwing; there were no private businesses, they had "Enterprises" or something. Treating your public workers in a horrible way doesn't mean you are not leftwing. USSR had very heavy regulations and they were dictating quotas to each area that then dictated quotas down etc. That is very heavy regulation of the public sector.

You can be rightwing and not be completely and utterly rightwing. Personally, I am moderate rightwing. Free market but with some government regulations. Not many, and certainly not to the point where the government tells private businesses what videos they can and what they cannot show in their platforms.

Also HH, keep in mind that the coin has the other side. If YouTube could be forced by the government to provide services to alt-rights, they could be forced by the government to deny service to the alt-rights. Or groups the government didn't like etc.
It is far better to let companies do as they please with their clients.

You don't like it? Make your own company, HeathenTube and don't deny service to alt rights, and show their videos etc. It is your right. And thankfully, USA are not as leftwing to force you to deny service on your video-showing platform or provide service.

[Heathen Hammer]

Also HH, keep in mind that the coin has the other side. If YouTube could be forced by the government to provide services to alt-rights, they could be forced by the government to deny service to the alt-rights. Or groups the government didn't like etc.

Clearly, I was talking about preventing oligopolies from denying service based on political views. Government can't do the part in bold, because of constitution. If US constitution is no longer a factor, then US technically no longer exists as a state, so we are talking about a rather hypothetical scenario.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

I already elaborated. You just didn't bother to reply to it.
You conveniently skipped over anything that needed anything more than rhetoric on your part.

Elaborated where? Not in our discussion, and certainly not in the post I was replying to.

Social medisa providers obviously. Please do keep up with the subject matter. Vanoi summed up their position very neatly.

That's very easy to say when you aren't the one being affected. I'm not either, but more than anything this worries me as it can very easily become a slippery slope. What stops social media providers from deciding that a view that had been previously completely legitimate is now extreme, and must be censored? What if you suddenly can't criticise the government, because clearly criticising someone or something is a call to action and violence? What if socialism becomes extreme and a bannable offence because they decide that it is a call to violence against wealthy people? Makes about as much sense as Toho saying that Hannity is partially to blame for speaking against immigration from Muslim countries, which Toho's seems to think naturally leads to violence against said immigrants?

I repeat the earlier question , are they pushing material would cause harm to other identifiable groups or excuse it to benefit dubious cults and there are the rest of us, the normal people? If the answer is no , then your pleadings are futile.

As for the first part of this sentence, you could make the same argument about many other things. Could pushing socialist material cause harm to other identifiable groups (rich people)? yes, it can.
As for the 2nd part of your sentence, I don't understand it.

[mongrel]

That's very easy to say when you aren't the one being affected. I.

I'm not affected because I'm not a deranged racist or perverted mysogynist arse. That is no detriment. As regards those who could be affected, well Gary Glitter is no doubt prevented from hosting an under 12s glam picture page and Anjem Choudhury isn't allowed to get dupes to blow themselves up in the name of a fake Caliphate . No loss to humanity.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

I'm not affected because I'm not a deranged racist or perverted mysogynist arse. That is no detriment. As regards those who could be affected, well Gary Glitter is no doubt isprevented from hosting an under 12s glam picture page and Anjem Choudhury isn't allowed to get dupes to blow themselves up in the name of a fake Caliphate . No loss to humanity.

Of course you completely disregard the rest of what I said, not the first time in this thread.
Allow me to quote a poem for you, Mongrel, to better explain the slippery slope:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

[Coughdrop addict]

Of course you completely disregard the rest of what I said, not the first time in this thread.
Allow me to quote a poem for you, Mongrel, to better explain the slippery slope:

[/FONT][/COLOR]

The slippery slope fallacy is called a fallacy for a reason. One law or policy does not inevitably lead to another.

No one arguing against Youtube's right to choose not to monetize content it doesn't want to has shown any proof that it will go further than that. The best we've been given is that some people feel it will and we should take their feelings as iron-clad facts, or hinting at shadowy conspiracies they believe are plotting against them.

[Infidel144]

Okay, let's go over this again. Banning hate groups from your platform and videos full of "(insert people) are subhuman filth and you should kill them all right now" is generally seen as a good thing by liberals.

Is that the only thing Youtube did was to 'ban hate groups' whose video's were full of "(insert people) are subhuman filth and you should kill them all right now"?

[mongrel]

Of course you completely disregard the rest of what I said, not the first time in this thread.
Allow me to quote a poem for you, Mongrel, to better explain the slippery slope:

[/FONT][/COLOR]

Of course I disregard what you say, your ridiculous use of the tired poem only confirms my point. I mean, what are you trying to say ?

'First they came for the racists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a racist.'

How does that make sense? Racism is a social disease, there is no material detriment to anyone if such behaviour is discouraged.

By banning bogoted extremists we would enhance the lives of Jews, communists and trade unionists, obviously.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Of course I disregard what you say, your ridiculous use of the tired poem only confirms my point. I mean, what are you trying to say ?

'First they came for the racists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a racist.'

How does that make sense? Racism is a social disease, the is no material detriment to anyone if such behaviour is discouraged.

By banning bogoted extremists we would enhance the lives of Jews, communists and trade unionists, obviously.

I agree.

Even more as it is from Reverend Martin Niemöller, who wrote it AGAINST doing nothing against the rise of nazism in Germany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller#Imprisonment_and_liberation

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller

Edit:

By the way the original version was:

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.

Als sie die Juden holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Jude.

Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr,
der protestieren konnte.


When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

It is even more clear that the poem is against nazism, not protect it as freedump of speech.

[fkizz]

Big tech's war on independent content creators isn't really news and was going on for some time. The amount of people here being okay with having corporate CEOs decide what can be said on the Internet is quite disturbing, and also rather ironic when its self-proclaimed socialists who line up in queues to kiss ass of corporations for virtue-signaling on their behalf.

Marxists and leftists of today are the first ones kissing the ring of power of the Corporate CEOs (big shot capitalists) and tacitally aproving/defending the same wealth inequalities they complain about later.
This still causes me some cognitive dissonance, but I'm guetting used it.

[mongrel]

Marxists and leftists of today are the first ones kissing the ring of power of the Corporate CEOs (big shot capitalists) and tacitally aproving/defending the same wealth inequalities they complain about later.
This still causes me some cognitive dissonance, but I'm guetting used it.

How does racism and misgeny etc deal with wealth inequalities? Never heard anything so daft.


I can just imagine it now . 'Your donation of $5 can keep a racist like Tommy Robinson in beer money for one hour, $10 can remove milkshake residue from his track suit'.

[Heathen Hammer]

Crusade against imaginary racism is a convenient way for profit-oriented corporations (as well as politicians that they have in their bag) to raise their public image among less intelligent segments of society.