Nazi Punch - Youtube bans inherently discriminatory videos

[Heathen Hammer]

You don't have to nationalize a company just to take away its "right" to attempt to control exchange of ideas in society by denying platform to anyone opposing or criticizing neoliberalism. Companies can't kill people or rape them, or make experiments on them. Is that "socialism" to you too? Admit it, you just want corporate CEO's to censor what can be said on the Internet because you agree with their ideology. The whole forced "muh socialism" argument is ridiculous and reeks of desperation.

[Vanoi]

You don't have to nationalize a company just to take away its "right" to attempt to control exchange of ideas in society by denying platform to anyone opposing or criticizing neoliberalism.

They don't control the exchange of ideas. You seriously act as if social media and Youtube are the only things people get their information from when you know i have shown that false from studies done on social media use in the US.

Your ideas are not silenced just because you can't create videos on Youtube anymore.

Companies can't kill people or rape them, or make experiments on them. Is that "socialism" to you too?

Thats basic law all people have to follow. Companies can't kill you or rape you because rape and murder are illegal in the US. Not because we had to come up with specific regulations and laws for companies themselves not to rape or murder you.

Business have rights as well. A right to deny service being one of them. You want that taken away. You want government controlled or extremely government regulated businesses. Socialism.

Admit it, you just want corporate CEO's to censor what can be said on the Internet because you agree with their ideology.

I believe in the right of business to deny people service yes. Again i am not a socialist like you and have absolutely no problem admitting it. Free speech only applies against the government like it always has been in my country and as according to my country's Constitution.

The whole forced "muh socialism" argument is ridiculous and reeks of desperation.

What's desperation is you seriously suggesting to turn these companies into public utilities without any idea how they work in the US or realizing that they could still deny you service. You talk out of your ass way too much.

[mongrel]

Who decides what views are considered extreme?.

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

That isn't what he said however. According to Toho Fox can be held does through Hannity.

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.

[sumskilz]

A telephone company in America is not in anyway required to provide you with telecommunications service.

If i stop paying my water company which is a public utility they will shut off my water. They give me water, i pay them. They are in no way required by law to provide me with water.

The details vary by state, and it doesn't apply to social media platforms, but you are mistaken on these two points. The water company is required to provide you service, and the conditions under which they can shut off your water are regulated. If you have a legitimate reason that it's difficult to pay, they are obligated to provide you service at a lower rate or make a repayment plan to get your service up and running again. In general, they can terminate service for refusal to pay but not for inability to pay, but it's on the customer to prove inability, and in that case there are usually assistance programs anyway. They can't terminate service because you're a racist or whatever. Telecommunications companies are annoyed by the fact that there are still utilities regulations on them that only made sense for land lines.

Quickest thing I could find that's linkable (PDF):

Twentieth century U.S. regulators built on an ancient common law duty that applied to public utilities such as ferries, flour mills and railroads, imposing on electric utilities a ‘‘duty to serve,’’ an obligation to provide extraordinary levels of service to customers, especially small residential customers. As applied today in most states, the public utility duty to serve entails several obligations, including: the duty to interconnect and extend service if requested; the duty to provide continuing reliable service; the duty to provide advanced notice of service disconnection; and the duty to continue service even though a customer cannot make full payment. Unlike other obligations that apply to private firms, including those such as inns and restaurants representing or holding themselves out as serving the public, in the public utility context the duty to serve requires service where it is not ordinarily considered profitable.

I posted an excerpt from an academic essay about the relevant issues as applied to social media earlier in the thread. For the most part, neither precedent nor US law supports the utilities argument. Although there are exceptions that leave the argument open, for example, cable companies are required to carry local channels that they might not want to.

[Heathen Hammer]

They don't control the exchange of ideas. You seriously act as if social media and Youtube are the only things people get their information from when you know i have shown that false from studies done on social media use in the US.

Your ideas are not silenced just because you can't create videos on Youtube anymore.

You didn't really address the fact that they are corporate oligopolies that attempt to control hat can be said on the Internet. Either force them to give anyone platform or break them up. Neither is socialism (which implies ownership). We are yet to hear a valid reason form you on why should Google CEOs determine what can be said on the Internet.

[Vanoi]

The details vary by state, and it doesn't apply to social media platforms, but you are mistaken on these two points. The water company is required to provide you service, and the conditions under which they can shut off your water are regulated.

That varies. I'm not aware of water companies in my own state requiring to give you water. At least not in my experience. I could be wrong though.

If you have a legitimate reason that it's difficult to pay, they are obligated to provide you service at a lower rate or make a repayment plan to get your service up and running again.

I know that's not true in my state. Now we have a non-profit organization that will help you if you have the inability to pay your water/gas/electric bills but it has its own requirements and i don't think they will help you forever. Its the only form of utility assistance you can get in this area.

The water companies in my state are sleazy as hell and they get horrible reviews. Grand Strand Water and Sewage Authority (my water company) will charge you 45$ just for them to disconnect service to you. In my own experience and others they in no way will help you even if you have an inability to pay. They will keep charging you regardless until they decide to shut your water off and will not reconnect it until you pay the outstanding bill.

Its probably just my state though. Public utilities in South Carolina with a few exceptions really just want to you over as much as possible.

I posted an excerpt from an academic essay about the relevant issues as applied to social media earlier in the thread. For the most part, neither precedent nor US law supports the utilities argument. Although there are exceptions that leave the argument open, for example, cable companies are required to carry local channels that they might not want to.

It stretch though from whats being discussed here with those companies controlling the content on their services. Really doubt video streaming sites and social media could ever be made inot public utilities.

You didn't really address the fact that they are corporate oligopolies that attempt to control hat can be said on the Internet. Either force them to give anyone platform or break them up. Neither is socialism (which implies ownership). We are yet to hear a valid reason form you on why should Google CEOs determine what can be said on the Internet.

There is no right to a platform. These corporations can only control what said on their service. Just because Facebook banned you doesn't mean you can't use Yahoo email anymore. Or Twitter. Or Reddit.

Google only controls the services it provides. Google does not control what happens on Twitter. Google does not control what happens on Facebook. Control has no control over Yahoo or Bing or Microsoft or the services they provide.

The Google CEO does not control the Internet. You are getting really desperate in your arguments.

[Heathen Hammer]

So according to Vanoi, a private company can take over a whole aspect of society (in this case exchange of ideas) and any attempts to prevent it from abusing it is "socialism".

[Toho]

So according to Vanoi, a private company can take over a whole aspect of society (in this case exchange of ideas) and any attempts to prevent it from abusing it is "socialism".

If you are advocating to break up these companies so it is not as monopolistic as you fear the Democrats are already holding hearings about this exact idea.

[Vanoi]

So according to Vanoi, a private company can take over a whole aspect of society (in this case exchange of ideas) and any attempts to prevent it from abusing it is "socialism".

Saying its over and over doesn't make it true. Private companies do not control the Internet. Only the services they provide.

[Heathen Hammer]

If you are advocating to break up these companies so it is not as monopolistic as you fear the Democrats are already holding hearings about this exact idea.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Saying its over and over doesn't make it true. Private companies do not control the Internet. Only the services they provide.

They are trying to control exchange of ideas on the Internet. And major companies also collude to do that as well. Hence why there is nothing really wrong about denying them right to deny anyone platform.

[Vanoi]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Break them up. They can still deny you a platform. That doesn't change.

They are trying to control exchange of ideas on the Internet. And major companies also collude to do that as well. Hence why there is nothing really wrong about denying them right to deny anyone platform.

There again is no right to a platform. They only control content on their services. The exchange of ideas does not only happen on social media or video streaming sites. It happens all over the Internet on forums like this and outside the Internet.

They do not control the exchange of ideas. Thats just you talking out of your ass again. You know for a fact you don't even need the internet to exchange ideas. Humans have managed it for thousands of years.

[Heathen Hammer]

Break them up. They can still deny you a platform. That doesn't change.

If they are broken up - yes. Oligopolies (such as Google or Facebook) shouldn't have a right to deny anyone.

There again is no right to a platform. They only control content on their services. The exchange of ideas does not only happen on social media or video streaming sites. It happens all over the Internet on forums like this and outside the Internet.

They do not control the exchange of ideas. Thats just you talking out of your ass again. You know for a fact you don't even need the internet to exchange ideas. Humans have managed it for thousands of years.

Irrelevant. Internet is a huge factor in exchange of ideas and video is one of the most popular formats of such exchange, youtube being the biggest video hosting website. I'm, surprised I even have to explain that.
And as it was explained above, just because you cant' censor people doesn't mean government takes over.

[Vanoi]

If they are broken up - yes. Oligopolies (such as Google or Facebook) shouldn't have a right to deny anyone.

Sorry but in the US businesses have a right to deny service. Go implement that socialism in Canada where you live.

Irrelevant. Internet is a huge factor in exchange of ideas and video is one of the most popular formats of such exchange, youtube being the biggest video hosting website. I'm, surprised I even have to explain that.

Radio, Newspapers, and TV also used to be the biggest factor in the exchange of ideas. None of them were ever forced to provide a platform to people. Youtube being popular is irrelevant. It shows you don't' care about people actually having a platform as much as you want people to be forced to listen to what you have to say.

Considering again these companies don't control the internet but only the content of the services they offer as if their right as a business your point is moot. The exchange of ideas does not require Youtube and you know that.

And as it was explained above, just because you cant' censor people doesn't mean government takes over.

Government regulation denying the rights of businesses or government takeovers is socialism. Free speech doesn't apply to private entities. Nor even public utilities.

[mongrel]

You didn't really address the fact that they are corporate oligopolies that attempt to control hat can be said on the Internet. Either force them to give anyone platform or break them up. Neither is socialism (which implies ownership). We are yet to hear a valid reason form you on why should Google CEOs determine what can be said on the Internet.

Begging for freebies now? What next, some racists demanding that Fosters put aside part of it's stock of beer and hand them out to them free of charge, because racism is thirsty work?

[Heathen Hammer]

Sorry but in the US businesses have a right to deny service. Go implement that socialism in Canada where you live.

I don't think you understand what socialism is. Not letting unelected corporate entities determine what can be said on the Internet isn't socialism. Heck, you can find US government regulating certain aspects of economy to a much higher degree, so by your own logic US is already a socialist country.

Radio, Newspapers, and TV also used to be the biggest factor in the exchange of ideas. None of them were ever forced to provide a platform to people. Youtube being popular is irrelevant. It shows you don't' care about people actually having a platform as much as you want people to be forced to listen to what you have to say.

So basically you want corporate entities to prevent people from voicing opinions you disagree with.

[Vanoi]

I don't think you understand what socialism is. Not letting unelected corporate entities determine what can be said on the Internet isn't socialism.

They don't determine whats on the Internet. Just the content on their services. You keep repeating this over and over. Its still not going to make it true.

Heck, you can find US government regulating certain aspects of economy to a much higher degree, so by your own logic US is already a socialist country.

Regulation isn't socialism. Taking the rights of businesses away and enacting government takeovers or extreme regulation and control is socialism.

So basically you want corporate entities to prevent people from voicing opinions you disagree with.

So you want to take away the rights of businesses and implement socialism? I can do strawmans too HH. Businesses have the right to deny service to people.

[Heathen Hammer]

They don't determine whats on the Internet.

You keep repeating same claim, but there is no evidence that it is factual. if they are a corporate oligopolies then they do have that power for all intents and purposes.

Regulation isn't socialism. Taking the rights of businesses away and enacting government takeovers or extreme regulation and control is socialism.

Plenty rights of businesses are taken away by variety of laws - they have to pay taxes or surrender private info. By your own logic, US is already socialist as it gets. I don't see how preventing businesses from interfering with society's ability to exchange ideas is any different. Unless, of course, you just happen to agree with the bias of corporate entities that do that.

So you want to take away the rights of businesses and implement socialism? I can do strawmans too HH. Businesses have the right to deny service to people.

As it was pointed out above, this doesn't fall under definition of socialism. Not letting corporate CEOs censor Internet doesn't imply nationalizing their corporations. Again, repeating same claim won't make it true.

[Vanoi]

You keep repeating same claim, but there is no evidence that it is factual. if they are a corporate oligopolies then they do have that power for all intents and purposes.

Google does not control the content on Facebook or Yahoo. That alone destroys your argument. Nevermind you are the one making a claim with no evidence whatsoever. They only control whats on their services. Google can't tell Yahoo what to do or vice versa.

Plenty rights of businesses are taken away by variety of laws - they have to pay taxes or surrender private info. By your own logic, US is already socialist as it gets.

Taxes they pay have nothing to do with rights. all people pay taxes, business or not. Just as their are laws that make them surrender private info they also have laws protecting them from giving out your private info so that point is rather moot. Not as simple and wrong as you try and put it.

I don't see how preventing businesses from interfering with society's ability to exchange ideas is any different. Unless, of course, you just happen to agree with the bias of corporate entities that do that.

They can again only control the content of their services. They can't stop the actual exchange of ideas which goes far beyond social media or even the Internet. Try again.

As it was pointed out above, this doesn't fall under definition of socialism. Not letting corporate CEOs censor Internet doesn't imply nationalizing their corporations. Again, repeating same claim won't make it true.

Letting companies determine the content of their services is not controlling the Internet. Extreme regulation, taking away business rights, and government takeovers is socialism.

[Heathen Hammer]

Google does not control the content on Facebook or Yahoo. That alone destroys your argument. Nevermind you are the one making a claim with no evidence whatsoever. They only control whats on their services. Google can't tell Yahoo what to do or vice versa.

And here you are worng as well - big tech colludes all the time, whether to suppress opinions or to get rid of competition.

Taxes they pay have nothing to do with rights. all people pay taxes, business or not. Just as their are laws that make them surrender private info they also have laws protecting them from giving out your private info so that point is rather moot. Not as simple and wrong as you try and put it.

Wait, so you are now advocating for socialism?

They can again only control the content of their services. They can't stop the actual exchange of ideas which goes far beyond social media or even the Internet. Try again.

And if they are an oligopoly, then their "control" over such services plays a significant impact on society - hence why they are too big to have such a right.

Letting companies determine the content of their services is not controlling the Internet. Extreme regulation, taking away business rights, and government takeovers is socialism.

Not letting corporations deny someone platform on a whim isn't extreme regulations. Just basic regulations to make sure that these corporations aren't harming society.

[Vanoi]

And here you are worng as well - big tech colludes all the time, whether to suppress opinions or to get rid of competition.

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

Wait, so you are now advocating for socialism?

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.

And if they are an oligopoly, then their "control" over such services plays a significant impact on society - hence why they are too big to have such a right.

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

Not letting corporations deny someone platform on a whim isn't extreme regulations. Just basic regulations to make sure that these corporations aren't harming society.

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