Nazi Punch - Youtube bans inherently discriminatory videos

[Cope]

Big tech is now going to be subject to an antitrust review

[Coughdrop addict]

In other words, companies that don't tow the party line will now be broken up or nationalized to protect Trump and his supporter's fragile egos.

[Aexodus]

In other words, companies that don't tow the party line will now be broken up or nationalized to protect Trump and his supporter's fragile egos.

That’s not how anti-trust laws work,

[Heathen Hammer]

In other words, companies that don't tow the party line will now be broken up or nationalized to protect Trump and his supporter's fragile egos.

Can you heat this? It is the world's smallest violin playing for silicon valley oligopolies that try to censor what can be said on the Internet.
But I do dig the irony of self-proclaimed liberals defending corporations that try to impose restrictions on free speech.

[Coughdrop addict]

That’s not how anti-trust laws work,

Now that the Attorney General is Trump's fixer we can't take rule of law for granted.

Can you heat this? It is the world's smallest violin playing for silicon valley oligopolies that try to censor what can be said on the Internet.
But I do dig the irony of self-proclaimed liberals defending corporations that try to impose restrictions on free speech.

I can't wait for a Democratic President to use the precedent to break up or nationalize businesses that have alleged conservative leanings. I'm sure you'll be just fine with that.

[Swiss Army Cheese]

Can you heat this? It is the world's smallest violin playing for silicon valley oligopolies that try to censor what can be said on the Internet.

I've seen smaller.

But I do dig the irony of self-proclaimed liberals defending corporations that try to impose restrictions on free speech.

Are you kidding? Defending corporations powers is part in parcel with the ideals of Classical Liberalism.

It's about time the so-called-left re-embrace what it means to be a lefty, and fight for the rights of our technocratic working class overlords.

[Vanoi]

No, Vanoi, you can't just walk into CNN studio and broadcast something. They can chose to interview someone or something but that's their decision to pick someone and they can always leave out stuff that person says that they don't like.

So you're sayong CNN invites people on its network to voice their opinions? Sounds like a platform.

Oh and local broadcasting isnt CNN. I see you ignored it on purpose.

That's not giving platform. Same thing with editorials. They won't publish anything unless they agree with it. So do you have any actual proof for your claim or not.

Just because they can choose who they publish or invite doesn't mean its not a platform. People can still voice their opinions on them which is the definition of a platform. I've proven my claim. What about yours?

They are huge oligopolies that control a large segment of social media market, by virtue of that they can control speech on the Internet. I'm surprised I have to explain basic stuff over and over again, even though your point has been disproven multiple times.

Social media is but one part of the Internet. Unless they can control everything oitside of social media your claim is false. Like usual.

[Cope]

Garbbard is suing Google for allegedly attempting to suppress her bid to become president.

[Swiss Army Cheese]

So you're sayong CNN invites people on its network to voice their opinions? Sounds like a platform.

Holy . I never thought of the word "Platform" in the use as a "Platform or stage" sort of way (or platform shoes for that manner.)

Sorry, that was just a mind expansion moment.

[Vanoi]

Garbbard is suing Google for allegedly attempting to suppress her bid to become president.

I'm sure she has so much evidence for that accusation.

[Love Mountain]

That’s not how anti-trust laws work,

The criticism isn't about how anti-trust laws are written, but an innuendo towards how they are applied under the Trump administration.

free discourse is impaired thats the point. youtube reaches a huge audience. if youtube can arbitrarily decide to silence people, they have a great power over public discourse which they should not have.

Youtube doesn't really have an "audience". Individual channels do. Nazis can take their audience somewhere else, but I imagine they're not competent enough to do so.

[Aexodus]

What about the banned people who are not Nazis?

[Love Mountain]

What about the banned people who are not Nazis?

Same with them. Quite frankly, the amount of corporate power that Youtube wields is disturbing. For example, all the video game companies that basically troll Angry Joe with DMCAs and other similar Youtubers. I don't think Youtube is a good platform to express opinion, criticism, or dissent. I also don't think we should it expect it to be that. What needs to happen is an emergence of a serious competitor. Again, the issue here is the cost of hosting video content. I hypothesize that Google does not reveal the financials for Youtube because it doesn't really make them any money directly. I'm sure it makes them a lot of money "indirectly", but that's not something investors and shareholders necessarily understand.

So the question is, how do you compete with a "business" that is being run at a loss? I'm thinking that a peer-sharing, blockchain competitor will be necessary. Something that's easy to scale, free to use, and has very small maintenance costs. Youtube demonetizing content-creators and driving them off platforms is creating a larger incentive for such a competitor.

So in short,

1. I don't think Youtube choosing what content shows up on its platform is a bad thing.
2. I think a direct Youtube competitor needs to exist anyway, such a creation is a long-overdue.
3. I also don't think that public discourse is greatly inconvenienced by the existence of Youtube.

Can't think of anything else at the moment, but these are some of the reasons why I don't think Youtube banning "politically incorrect" content is a bad thing.

[Heathen Hammer]

Now that the Attorney General is Trump's fixer we can't take rule of law for granted.



I can't wait for a Democratic President to use the precedent to break up or nationalize businesses that have alleged conservative leanings. I'm sure you'll be just fine with that.

That has nothing to do with anti-trust laws or how they work. Definitely nothing to do with political leanings.

So you're sayong CNN invites people on its network to voice their opinions? Sounds like a platform.

Oh and local broadcasting isnt CNN. I see you ignored it on purpose.

As I said, this isn't really comparable to social media.

Just because they can choose who they publish or invite doesn't mean its not a platform. People can still voice their opinions on them which is the definition of a platform. I've proven my claim. What about yours?

Um, that's literally the difference. Hosting videos or inviting a person to say some pre-determined talking points on air are two different things.

Social media is but one part of the Internet. Unless they can control everything oitside of social media your claim is false. Like usual.

It is more significant within context of society's ability to exchange ideas, which is something you keep ignoring since it disproves your argument. Like usual.