Yet another attack on free speech. A shame for sure. What's next I wonder?
Yet another attack on free speech. A shame for sure. What's next I wonder?
Hmm, fighting "Nazis" by implementing Nazi style censorship? Neat.
What's next, will YouTube ban itself?
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.
-Betrand Russell
Good news for idiots and those who favour oligarchy over democracy.
Because that's what censorship through corporations inadvertently leads to.
You either have a principled stance or you have no stance at all.
It's beyond me that people can agree that a governmental "ministry of truth" such as those in the third Reich, China and the Soviet Union are a bad idea, but somehow multi billion/trillion dollar companies work for the common good.
To add insult to injury, these actions will have no positive impact on society. Walling those on the fringes out means also cutting yourself off from them. They will be invigorated and reasoned discussions will become even harder. They will, and in part already do present themselves as resistance against oppression (ever wondered why the heroes in movies & books tend to be the little guys?) and as martyrs.
So nice of y'all to gift them the moral high ground.
What about democracy & freedom of expression? Gonna miss that? No? McCarthy teach you nothing?
That's a BS strawman argument to make. If everything looks brown to you, it might be time for you to take your head out of your behind.
If you think humanity & especially corporations aren't prone to abuse every precedent & loophole given to them, you're beyond naive.
Oh my god.
If there were such a thing as "brain haemorrhoids", this would be it.
What does all of this remind me of? Oh right! My bro Plato:
It's highly ironic that those effectively arguing for Plato style republic are also the very same that he wanted to exclude from power in the first place. One of the big reasons he became so aversed from democracy was Athenians not liking what Socrates had to say, and shutting him up - permanently in the end.There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands.
Some are more equal than others.
I think that if history can still really teach us something useful, it teaches clearly that all the tyrannic political systems, (Castrism, Maoism, Nazism, Communism, Fascism, European Ancienne Régime and so on), which used censure as political tool for demonizing and silencing their political adversaries, have miserably failed in their intent and soon after they fell, they left behind only ruins and the sad memory of the moral misery of their censorship's voluptuousness.
So, I consider what's currently happening as a clear sign of the incoming collapse of the whole Leftist political and pseudo-cultural Sorosian system. It was time!
In any case, since youtube has decided to become what actually it already is, a leftist kindergarten for all the kinds of wannabe socialcommunist of the planet, other more liberal social media are already taking its place:
BitChute, Telegram, Gab and/or Minds.
An interesting comment about "The Purge" by Sargon of Akkad:
Last edited by Diocle; June 06, 2019 at 07:10 AM.
So Basil, basically your argument boils down to:
"OMFG!!! YouTube has banned a comedian hardly anyone has ever heard of for being racist and homophobic! This is an outrageous free-speech violation! The only solution is ban everything I don't personally like!!"
LOL Wut?
P.S. I'm fairly certain you don't really have much of a clue what communism really is, or else you'd realise that a private company refusing service to a user who broke their terms and conditions, isn't it at all...
Last edited by TheLeft; June 06, 2019 at 07:30 AM.
What does it matter how well known he is? Silencing people who are less known is ok so long as you don't silence the big ones? is that the point you're trying to get across?
In these cases my answer is always the same (I'm talking in place of basil, sorry basil!): "I wrote what I wrote. If I wanted to write something different, I would have. So, please, spare us the usual “creative paraphrasing” of what it actually says."
Now, do yourself a favour: watch Sargon'video I posted so that, for once, you'll be able to say: "Being a smart guy, now I kow what my adversaries think!" .. and finally, in this way, you'll have even the occasion to comment a more serious and relevant analysis, than the ones contained in Diocle's and basil's posts on this gaming site.
Last edited by Diocle; June 06, 2019 at 07:58 AM.
Private Company banns some complete irrelevant Guy from their own Platform----> Nazi Style Censorship!
Yeah, sure
Why even bring it up then? If anything, the fact that he isn't all that well known makes it even worse. People who are well known can defend themselves better, as they are more likely to be able to afford to monetarily, their silencing is more public and gets more attention etc.
First of all: It isn't just one guy though. You know that already, so why pretend you don't?
Secondly: I still can't fathom why people'd think allowing corporations to control public discourse is a good idea.
That doesn't mean that incitement of hatred should be accepted:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
But that's what the judicial system is for.
Either you do believe in democracy, in which case you'll surely realise the import of open debate, and the need to hold plutocracy at bay. Or you don't.
Either you have a principled stance, or you have no stance. Which means, in a theoretical scenario where a political party has campaign goals counter to big corporations, it should be totally ok for those to censor them.
Let's say "Die Linke" makes a demand that facebook can no longer sell their user data to anyone, and should get hard punishments if they do. Since you already agree that they should be able to manipulate public discourse by censoring those you don't like, they can also censor those you do like, or agree with in certain matters.
Let's say a far right party emerges that wants to give social media free reign with data and 0 taxation. You have no principled argument that facebook/youtube/etc. shouldn't be allowed to give them more exposure, thereby ensuring they'd get more seats in an election.
It's really funny people here trust big corporations more than their own judicial systems.
Who's censoring you? I'm criticising your choice of words, not calling for you to be banned. That seems to be the main difference in this debate. I and others think that free speech is important and needs to be protected, even if I utterly disagree with what is said. I don't think anyone should be banned unless there is a call to violence. You and those on your side think people whose opinion are radically different from your own should be banned.
Last edited by nhytgbvfeco2; June 06, 2019 at 09:55 AM.
Whats about the sacrosanct dignity of humans (Art. 1 German Constitution), which is constantly violate by "comedians" with racistic low blows because their over years bullied/harassed victim is gay, Latino, Jew, Muslim (Caliph of London)?What about democracy & freedom of expression? Gonna miss that? No? McCarthy teach you nothing?
It is like the Case Berhard Weiss, a former jewish police vice president of Berlin, which was in the 20s bullied by Goebbels as Isidor Weiss. Bernhard Weiss was successfull in 60 civil processes, but as no criminal hatespeech laws existed, this was impossible to stop.
And in the past, it was nearly impossible to do something against hatespeech in youtube, as Google didn't cared about national judgments between third persons.
Now after Christchurch and the Christchurch Call of some western heads of state, which demanded from Google and Co doing something against hate speech by themself or international regulation will follow, finally they move. Good.
Better some low quality "comedians" are closed as humans can unpunished victimized and bullied in the name of freespeech.
Last edited by Morticia Iunia Bruti; June 06, 2019 at 10:46 AM.
Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
And tomorrow you'll be on your way
Don't give a damn about what other people say
Because tomorrow is a brand-new day
The problem I have with the 'freedumb of speech' crowd is that they always seem to be unable to differentiate between state censorship (which is wrong) and a business's right to refuse service. YouTube is well within its rights to deny service to whomever it wants. If you have an issue then you are well within your rights to take your business elsewhere to another hosting service. YouTube taking down a racist video and blocking its author for violating (already agreed to) terms and conditions is hardly Nazi style book burning. Now if the a government decided that members of a certain group will be banned from speaking publicly or a topic is banned from being discussed, THAT would be censorship and wrong.
Also, I'm yet to be convinced that the far/alt-right crowd really care that much about the issue and are not just using it as a Trojan Horse to demand the right to be racist trolls. If they came across as genuine and altruistic then I'd be more inclined to take their argument seriously.
Last edited by TheLeft; June 06, 2019 at 10:50 AM.
I actually already answered that, and referenced Karl Popper:
This is what the judicial system and laws against incitement of hatred are for. I have no problems with actual nazis being sent to jail. I'm actually in favour of it.
Now your turn. Do you not like the judiciary? You'd rather trust big corporations to police our speech? Do you prefer plutocracy over democracy or are you simply taking the latter for given? Let's say google, facebook, twitter & Co. all get new investors, such as Trump & the Koch brothers, and all of the sudden all scientists arguing for climate change are banned, shadow-banned or simply given less outreach through algorithms. What is your argument going to be there? That it's ok?