Nazi Punch - Youtube bans inherently discriminatory videos

[Cookiegod]

So in other words, every single thing you said earlier about democracy and freedom of speech was pure hypocritical nonsense. Cool.

P.S. It's spelt sarcasm.

Not really. Since you're so apt at spelling, why don't you try reading Karl Popper's tolerance paradoxon?

A free society is designed to be malleable through public discourse. The only things that aren't malleable are the intrinsic human rights and the very mechanisms that make it malleable in the first place.

You don't want it to be malleable anymore. You want censorship. Hence you're a threat to the free society I stand for. You should be excluded from it, since you're an actual threat to it.

It's spelt sarcasm.

Ouch, that burner really hurt me. The fact that my native spelling slipped in debases my entire argument.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

National juridicial systems work bad to prevent crimes in internet, as it isn't is enough to have a national judgment, to finally enforce it to the international company, the state, where the international company has it seat, must accept it as valid. You need an international agreement between the two states, that one accept the judgments of the other. If you have no agreement, your national judgment is worthless.

Pointing to the classical juridicial way is pointless in the global internet.

Do you know, why Google now care? Because some states give them an ultimatum after Christchurch: Regulate this problem or we regulate your business in our territories by ourself.

[Cookiegod]

National juridicial systems work bad to prevent crimes in internet, as it isn't is enough to have a national judgment, to finally enforce it to the international company, the state, where the international company has it seat, must accept it as valid. You need an international agreement between the two states, that one accept the judgments of the other. If you have no agreement, your national judgment is worthless.

Pointing to the classical juridicial way is pointless in the global internet.

Do you know, why Google now care? Because some states give them an ultimatum after Christchurch: Regulate this problem or we regulate your business in our territories by ourself.

So if various billionaires with alligned interests, such as Koch brothers, Trump, etc. were to buy the majority stakes at the social media giants, they should be allowed to freely manipulate public discourse in any way they like. If they were to ban anti-gun & pro-immigration groups, that'd be ok to you?

[TheLeft]

A free society is designed to be malleable through public discourse. The only things that aren't malleable are the intrinsic human rights and the very mechanisms that make it malleable in the first place.

You don't want it to be malleable anymore. You want censorship. Hence you're a threat to the free society I stand for. You should be excluded from it, since you're an actual threat to it.

So in the name of freedom of speech, everyone who disagrees with you should be censored? Oh the irony...

Also, my views are clearly stated in my penultimate post. Perhaps try reading it before you embarrass yourself any further...

[nhytgbvfeco2]

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.

I'm against any and all censorship. And I perfectly understand the difference, I'm against youtube censoring, but it isn't illegal for them to do so. Doesn't mean that I can't criticise the move. This IS censorship and wrong, but isn't against the law.

I'm neither far nor alt-right, and honestly don't care what their motive is. Ever heard of "I disagree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death your right to say it"? This is (or rather, used to be) the position of Liberals, don't let it become that of exclusively the alt-right. See Jonathan Pie's rant on count Dankula's case, I don't think anyone can accuse Pie of being alt/far right.

[Cookiegod]

So in the name of freedom of speech, everyone who disagrees with you should be censored? Oh the irony...

Also, my views are clearly stated in my penultimate post. Perhaps try reading it before you embarrass yourself any further...

Perhaps learn to read before accusing others of not doing so.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

So if various billionaires with alligned interests, such as Koch brothers, Trump, etc. were to buy the majority stakes at the social media giants, they should be allowed to freely manipulate public discourse in any way they like. If they were to ban anti-gun & pro-immigration groups, that'd be ok to you?

Are you ignoring on purpose, what i'm writing?

Google and Co are now not acting because they suddenly care for minorities, they are active because if they do nothing, national governments will regulate their business more strictly.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...line-extremism

And those national governments have my full support.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Are you ignoring on purpose, what i'm writing?

Google and Co are now not acting because they suddenly care for minorities, they are active because if they do nothing, national governments will regulate their business more strictly.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...line-extremism

And those national governments have my full support.

So if Trump were to threaten to regulate google more harshly unless all youtubers who criticise Trump are banned you'd be fine with it?

[TheLeft]

Perhaps learn to read before accusing others of not doing so.

Yes, I read your meme. Anyone who disagrees with it must be censored and banned, amirite?

Although, I'm not sure exactly what I said in my post that is so controversial. But seeing as repeating oneself seems to be your thing, here's what I said. Again.

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.

I've even emboldened the relevant parts for you...

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Strawman argument as Trump is not critizised because he is gay, jew, muslim or evangelical, he 's critizised because of his policy and in many cases obviously wrong things he says.

If a left youtuber would only troll him because he is evangelical, he would be rightfully banned because of hate speech.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Strawman argument as Trump is not critizised because he is gay, jew, muslim or evangelical, he 's critizised because of his policy and in many cases obviously wrong things he says.

If a left youtuber would only troll him because he is evangelical, he would be rightfully banned because of hate speech.

No, but he is at times criticised for being white.
I highly doubt youtube would ban someone for criticising him, or anyone, for being evangelical.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Ok they are we again, poor white snowflakes surpressed by leftist, muslim femnazis, ethnical genocide of white people coming.

Rational discussion over for me.

[Swiss Army Cheese]

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.

Some of us live in countries where the Internet Service Providers form cartels that prevent us from using Youtube's competitors. We don't get to go to another hosting service when people block us from hosting things on Youtube (I am speaking of Bitchute, which has been blocked in Australia since March).

Save me your "you can go to somewhere else" spheal.

[Cookiegod]

Are you ignoring on purpose, what i'm writing?

Google and Co are now not acting because they suddenly care for minorities, they are active because if they do nothing, national governments will regulate their business more strictly.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...line-extremism

And those national governments have my full support.

First of all: Macron & Acern are doing a show, not real policy. The censorship is completely left up to the corporations.
Secondly: That should be government law and not left up to Google regardless.
Thirdly: An actual law has the advantage that you have courts and also a constitutional court that can assess whether the law is constitutional.
They are deliberately circumventing it, because they know what'd likely happen.
Fourthly: You can't say the judicial proceedings don't work in the internet age. Because they do. We're talking about the deplatforming of verifiable humans and their organisations. At no point has there been much of an issue with anonymous accounts being simply deleted. What the judiciary does need however is exactly an update on laws, so they fit the circumstances better, and more. MOST IMPORTANTLY, and best on an EU level, a set of laws that clearly define which kinds of algorithms are allowed and which ones are not.

Yes, I read your meme. Anyone who disagrees with it must be censored and banned, amirite?

Still unable to come up with a counterargument, amirite?

Although, I'm not sure exactly what I said in my post that is so controversial. But seeing as repeating oneself seems to be your thing, here's what I said. Again.

1) Your username is obviously a lie then. 2) Hiding behind the "free market" argument is a dumb thing to do for three reasons: 1: We're clearly dealing with an oligopoly here. So free market principles do not apply. 2: Before talking about "the right to refuse service" you should know what critical infrastructure is. 3: The right to refuse services are already limited. Or do you want corporations to be allowed to refuse gay people and people of colour service?
3) Critical infrastructure seems to be a foreign concept to you. It is a very basic, and widely applied concept - across the globe. Every government does, and has the obligation to, make sure that private enterprises do not work in a way that harms their interests and values.
4) Don't pretend you don't know why they're doing the censorship. Not because of morals, but because of outside, but extralegal pressure.

Strawman argument as Trump is not critizised because he is gay, jew, muslim or evangelical, he 's critizised because of his policy and in many cases obviously wrong things he says.

I'll again point to Socrates:

I know that I know nothing.

You cannot be sure that your opinion is the right one. Forbidding others simply because they're "obviously wrong" is a wrong approach.

This brings me back to Plato's republic. He was anti-democratic. He wanted censorship. He wanted philosopher-kings. Ironically exactly because people didn't get Socrates and decided to shut him down.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Ok they are we again, poor white snowflakes surpressed by leftist, muslim femnazis, ethnical genocide of white people coming.

Rational discussion over for me.

Pretty sure that that is not what I said.
If we are banning people for criticising people due to skin colour, why are whites an exception? Why is the standard "you can't make fun of any ethnicity except 1"? Are whites more capable of taking a joke? I'm a Jew and I can take a joke, no need for you to be offended for me.

[Aexodus]

Some of us live in countries where the Internet Service Providers form cartels that prevent us from using Youtube's competitors. We don't get to go to another hosting service when people block us from hosting things on Youtube (I am speaking of Bitchute, which has been blocked in Australia since March).

Save me your "you can go to somewhere else" spheal.

I didn’t know about that, thanks for sharing. That’s very worrying when a small group of people control the internet.

[mongrel]

I disagree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it"?

How about I disagree with what you say, and no-one should be put to death for your right to say ". Much more in keeping when dealing with these fanatics who agitate gullible others into thinking there is some urgent race/religious war to fight.

[Coughdrop addict]

Youtube is within their rights to refuse to do business with anyone. No amount of screaming "Communism" will change that. You can try changing the law to force Youtube to cater to the alt-right, but then you'll look pretty hypocritical the next time you cry about "persecution" and "oppression" when a gay couple wants a cake.

[mongrel]

In case there is any doubt, as far at the 14 worders and white genocide people are concerned, the line was crossed at this point.


https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/15/1...a-manipulation

[The spartan]

No, but he is at times criticised for being white.

About what portion of criticism leveled at Trump do you think is because he is white? Most complaints leveled at him don't seem to be "because he is white".

I highly doubt youtube would ban someone for criticising him, or anyone, for being evangelical.

If someone were making youtube videos calling evangelicals backwards savages that need to be removed from society because they promote genital mutilation of children? Probably.