Nazi Punch - Youtube bans inherently discriminatory videos

[Cookiegod]

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.

You know that works both ways, right? Are you in favour of discrimination of gays being allowed? If not so, on what grounds?

Say I made a video praising the Clinton foundation for the good it does while pointing out that the Trump Foundation was shut down for fraud. And then I not only demand Breitbart or Fox host the video on their site, but pay me to do so. And when they refuse I then claim it's all a massive conspiracy and some kind of genocide and that the government should force them to host my video and pay me for it.

Sounds pretty ridiculous huh?

Yeah it does. Because Fox and Breitbart to my knowledge are not social media companies. Want to elaborate your argument? Because as it stands it's pretty embarrassing.

Wait?? Does that mean you actually ARE the Cookie God?? A thousand apologies Your Chocolatey Biscuitness...

Lol, I didn't indicate a political stance through my username.
I know you try hard to come off as witty, but being snarky isn't the same.

They [=free market policies] really do [apply]. Unless you are advocating for the Nationalisation of YouTube.

That sentence alone shows how ignorant about how government and economics you are. Google oligopoly and come back when you finally know what you're talking about. Thanks!
And nope, I don't argue for nationalisation. Must have missed how the entire US company became state owned, since there isn't a single industry that doesn't have to deal with regulations.

Also people agree to the Terms and Conditions when they sign up. If you either can't be bothered to read the T's&C's or break the agreement for the use of their free service, don't be surprised if you have your services revoked. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

You sure they all got canned based on the T&C's? I'd like to see the sources for that.
Besides, T&C's don't replace the law.

Also, since when was every entertainer and media personality utterly dependant on YouTube?

Since Youtube's got a market share of ~90% perhaps? Not to mention the fact how it's part of the Google product family, or that anyone canned from Youtube for political reasons is also likely to be expelled by the even more restrictive other social media giants.

Mate, I work in Server Hosting (both locally and in the cloud), if you honestly think that YouTube comedy videos represent 'Critical Infrastructure', then I can't really help you.

You can start telling me how your job gave you that insight. It's nice banking on ethos, but they need to have something to do with it. You already seem to believe that the only way to regulate business is through nationalisation. If you didn't, you were purposefully pretending to be an idiot.

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?

Nice strawman.

Oh man! You don't even know what a strawman is?!
Using your own logic against you is not the same as a strawman, especially since it's posed as a question, thereby in no way indicating this to be your opinion.
So I'll ask again: If you're so vigorously defending company's right to refuse service, that's the logical conclusion, right?

I'd actually pay real money to see you turn up to a job interview for an IT role and proclaim that YouTube comedy videos are 'critical infrastructure'. Your internet link? Yes. YouTube? No.

You banking on your mostly unrelated professional background wouldn't be half as hilarious if you were right. You obviously don't know what infrastructure is. Let me help you out: There's hard infrastructure, and soft infrastructure. It doesn't need to be physical to be infrastructure. The only criteria is that it's playing a critical role for the population.

And how dafuq are you doing your job without once encountering software infrastructure? You never had to access a database or send a work email? Never had to do any cloud computing or such to know that software can be part of the infrastructure? Must be that way.
Now I'm left to wonder how you got through your job interview with that snarky attitude of yours. Your daddy get you that internship and all you do is fetch coffee for others?

Don't pretend you don't know why they're doing the censorship. Not because of morals, but because of outside, but extralegal pressure.

Got a source for that?

So you're seriously denying it?

[Big War Bird]

To anyone:

Who do you trust to control your access to news, facts and opinions?

[TheLeft]

Lol, I didn't indicate a political stance through my username.
I know you try hard to come off as witty, but being snarky isn't the same.

Really? I actually thought it was pretty funny. At least I made myself laugh...

I've always been a massive fan of the TW games and was a longtime lurker here (mainly for the mods), I stumbled across the the D&D forum. I was surprised to see so many right wingers here who seemed to anthropomorphise "The Left" into some kind of gestalt, all knowing entity. So my choice of username was pretty easy. While I would class myself as being left of centre, I'm hardly a card-carrying communist.

But the lesson here is, don't assume anything. Still, I am disappointed to hear you are not the actual Cookie God. Shame.

That sentence alone shows how ignorant about how government and economics you are. Google oligopoly and come back when you finally know what you're talking about. Thanks!

And nope, I don't argue for nationalisation. Must have missed how the entire US company became state owned, since there isn't a single industry that doesn't have to deal with regulations.

The point is that you are either for a free market or you're not. Plus market share is not permanent, just ask Yahoo, Ask Jeeves or MySpace. If another company offer a better, cheaper service, or perhaps offers content providers a greater share of AD revenue, things change.

You sure they all got canned based on the T&C's? I'd like to see the sources for that.

I'm sure you'll forgive me for not being able to source the exact reasons behind every single instance of content removal. But if you care to examine YouTube's terms and conditions you'll see the following:

7.5 You agree that your conduct on the site will comply with (and you agree that the content of all of your Content shall comply with) the YouTube Community Guidelines, found at http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines, as updated from time to time.

If you then follow the link to the Community Guidelines, you'll see this:

Hateful contentOur products are platforms for free expression. But we don't support content that promotes or condones violence against individuals or groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, nationality, veteran status or sexual orientation/gender identity, or whose primary purpose is inciting hatred on the basis of these core characteristics. This can be a delicate balancing act, but if the primary purpose is to attack a protected group, the content crosses the line.

So if your content breaks these terms, it's hardly a massive shock if it gets removed.

Besides, T&C's don't replace the law.

Huh? These Terms and Conditions are a legal agreement under the law. That's literally the point of it. Otherwise clicking "accept" would mean nothing.

1.3 The Terms form a legally binding agreement between you and YouTube in relation to your use of the Service. Our Privacy Policy explains how we treat your personal data and protect your privacy when you use the Service. It is important that you take the time to read the Terms and the Privacy Policy carefully.

Since Youtube's got a market share of ~90% perhaps? Not to mention the fact how it's part of the Google product family, or that anyone canned from Youtube for political reasons is also likely to be expelled by the even more restrictive other social media giants.

You're going to need to provide sources to back this up. Are you really claiming that every entertainer and media personality is utterly dependant on YouTube? Really?

Oh man! You don't even know what a strawman is?!
Using your own logic against you is not the same as a strawman, especially since it's posed as a question, thereby in no way indicating this to be your opinion.
So I'll ask again: If you're so vigorously defending company's right to refuse service, that's the logical conclusion, right?

Seems it's you who are actually unaware of the definition of a strawman argument. To quote:

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

At no point did I even mention YouTube potentially discriminating against either gay or people of colour. That's all in your head.

You banking on your mostly unrelated professional background wouldn't be half as hilarious if you were right. You obviously don't know what infrastructure is. Let me help you out: There's hard infrastructure, and soft infrastructure. It doesn't need to be physical to be infrastructure. The only criteria is that it's playing a critical role for the population.

And how dafuq are you doing your job without once encountering software infrastructure? You never had to access a database or send a work email? Never had to do any cloud computing or such to know that software can be part of the infrastructure? Must be that way.

No matter how much you want it to be so, YouTube comedy videos are not part of any Critical Infrastructure. I've emboldened the important word for you because there are obviously different types of infrastructure (two of which you've described above). But CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE??? No, it's really, really not. Here's the definition for you taken from Wiki:

Critical infrastructure (or critical national infrastructure (CNI) in the UK) is a term used by governments to describe assets that are essential for the functioning of a society and economy – the infrastructure. Most commonly associated with the term are facilities for:

Shelter; Heating (e.g. natural gas, fuel oil, district heating);
Agriculture, food production and distribution;
Water supply (drinking water, waste water/sewage, stemming of surface water (e.g. dikes and sluices));
Public health (hospitals, ambulances);
Transportation systems (fuel supply, railway network, airports, harbours, inland shipping);
Security services (police, military).
Electricity generation, transmission and distribution; (e.g. natural gas, fuel oil, coal, nuclear power)
Renewable energy, which are naturally replenished on a human timescale, such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, waves, and geothermal heat.
Telecommunication; coordination for successful operations
Economic sector; Goods and services and financial services (banking, clearing);

No mention of YouTube comedy videos as being part of Critical infrastructure.

Now I'm left to wonder how you got through your job interview with that snarky attitude of yours. Your daddy get you that internship and all you do is fetch coffee for others?

No. I got through my job interview by actually knowing what I'm talking about. Perhaps you should try it sometime before adding silly emojis and colourful metaphors to your spurious claims.

So you're seriously denying it?

The reason why I asked for a source is because I don't know for sure. This may surprise you, but my knowledge of the internal workings and boardroom politics of YouTube is pretty minimal. Either source your claim or withdraw it.

[Cope]

The point is that you are either for a free market or you're not. Plus market share is not permanent, just ask Yahoo, Ask Jeeves or MySpace. If another company offer a better, cheaper service, or perhaps offers content providers a greater share of AD revenue, things change.

Society is not limited to a binary choice between unrestricted markets and planned economies: the state is perfectly capable of regulating businesses without nationalizing them.

No matter how much you want it to be so, YouTube comedy videos are not part of any Critical Infrastructure. I've emboldened the important word for you because there are obviously different types of infrastructure (two of which you've described above). But CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE??? No, it's really, really not. Here's the definition for you taken from Wiki:

No mention of YouTube comedy videos as being part of Critical infrastructure.

You're missing the point. No one is claiming that specific YouTube videos are tantamount to societal infrastructure: they're arguing that the monopolization of telecommunications infrastructure (which is featured in the list you offered) by a handful of colluding, unaccountable corporations is undermining the spirit of free debate and fair competition. The Crowder affair only matters insofar as it demonstrates, at last partially, the extent to which powerful multinational organizations are able to use their influence to dictate political narratives online.

[Cookiegod]

1: I don't know why Americans keep thinking that, but there's no such thing as a pure "free market". Also not in the US. Hence the claim that "either you're pro free-market or not" is simply false. The entire US economy would be nationalised if your argument were true.
2: It doesn't matter how the market evolves, and where it evolves to. If you don't believe social media have a huge influence on political discourse and deciding elections, you've been living under a rock. If you do believe that, then it's critical infrastructure. I feel sorry for your boss, if you've never dealt with software infrastructure.
3: There's a difference between an oligarchy and a democracy, the same way there's a difference between oligopolies and a free market. The US are probably lost in both regards, but for Europe it's not too late.
Outcomes of elections should be decided by the people based on a free discourse, not by big corporations.
4:

Seems it's you who are actually unaware of the definition of a strawman argument. To quote:

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

At no point did I even mention YouTube potentially discriminating against either gay or people of colour. That's all in your head.

I didn't refute an argument you didn't make. You argue that companies should be free to refuse anyone. I pointed out that according to that logic they'd be free to discriminate based on race and sexuality as well. I asked you if you believed that. It were so easy for you to either say: "Yes I do believe that they should be able to do so." or "No, I don't think those two are the same, because...". Problem with the latter is that you'd have to come up with a coherent argument on why it's ok in one case and not in the other, so I'm not surprised that you're running from it.
5: If you want an actual example for a strawman argument, "Youtube comedy videos" would be it. You're the only one reducing it to that. Again, you're not that dumb. Stop trolling and face the actual arguments.

[Basil II the B.S]

UAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

YouTube's purge of white supremacist videos also hits anti-racism channels

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-...606-story.html

Looks like in their frenzy to punch Nazis, aka literally anyone who's not a genocidal liberal maniac, the liberals at youtube ended up punching someone of their own.

Plenty of positive notes:
1) It proves my point all along.They are ing evil and there's zero room for peaceful dialogue.
2) It fires up conservatives that rightfully can claim that liberals are going full Stalin and thus at this point we need to prepare to defend our families from violent outburts. I highly recommend Republican dominated states scrap all sorts of gun control laws.
3) It proves that these people are so full of hatred that they don't even see their own anymore. The definition of blinded by hatred.

A field day.

[Heathen Hammer]

One has to have Olympic skills in mental gymnastics to tell someone to live in North Korea for advocating free speech.

[The spartan]

Something tells me Basil doesn't give a pittance about Free Speech as principle, he doesn't exactly exude a Classical Liberal aura.

[ioannis76]

It's so funny to see leftists applauding decisions made by big corporations.

[Heathen Hammer]

It's so funny to see leftists applauding decisions made by big corporations.

This isn't anything new. Days when left advocated for interests of the working class are long gone and modern left is quite happy to live in an authoritarian oligarchical corporate dystopia as long as that dystopia panders to superficial aspects of their ideology. In the long term, this just means that the only thing we need to discredit their ideology is to... let them speak. This thread is the very proof of that.

[Captain Arrrgh!]

studied how the 50's communist witchtrials
".

"Witchtrials"?

You're not very well studied. Unless your idea of studying implies watching Hollywood movies.

[Cookiegod]

"Witchtrials"?

You're not very well studied. Unless your idea of studying implies watching Hollywood movies.

You endorse McCarthyism? Heh.

So, dear "leftists", happy to be on the same side as him?

[Captain Arrrgh!]

You endorse McCarthyism? Heh.

So, dear "leftists", happy to be on the same side as him?

'McCarthyism" doesn't mean anything, except to those adversely -though not unjustly- affected.

Don't assume what I do or don't endorse, cookieperson.

That said, the actual data of the investigation is very telling. Quite different from what you understand.

[Coughdrop addict]

You know that works both ways, right? Are you in favour of discrimination of gays being allowed? If not so, on what grounds?

Yeah it does. Because Fox and Breitbart to my knowledge are not social media companies. Want to elaborate your argument? Because as it stands it's pretty embarrassing.

I am of two minds on the subject actually. I don't like the idea of the government forcing you to do business with someone. But I can see why it is sometimes necessary, as otherwise we'd still have white only establishments and Jim Crow laws.

As for your second point, you of course know that both Brietbart and Fox also have videos on their sites. Whether or not they are social media is irrelevant. You can't simply dismiss my point. If Youtube can be forced to pay money to host a video, why can't they? Why couldn't I demand that your place of business host any video I want on it's site and claim I'm being oppressed if they refuse?

It's so funny to see leftists applauding decisions made by big corporations.

Contrary to right-wing propaganda, we liberals don't see corporations as inherently bad things. It's only when they try to buy political influence to get around the laws that prevent them from abusing their employees, cheating their customers, and poisoning the environment that we have a problem with them.

[Facupay]

Everything has gotten so warped and weird, the only thing that remains constant in history is the need of the "left" to control the opposition through censorship since they can´t do it through arguments and debate.

They applaud a megacorporation that is a main source of information for maybe billions to cave under the pressure of other megacorporations to censor certain views. I'm sure this is a very good precedent for what's to come.

[Cope]

I am of two minds on the subject actually. I don't like the idea of the government forcing you to do business with someone. But I can see why it is sometimes necessary, as otherwise we'd still have white only establishments and Jim Crow laws.

Some people believe that in order for the spirit of democracy and free expression to prevail, it is necessary for major telecommunications platforms to be regulated.

As for your second point, you of course know that both Brietbart and Fox also have videos on their sites. Whether or not they are social media is irrelevant. You can't simply dismiss my point. If Youtube can be forced to pay money to host a video, why can't they? Why couldn't I demand that your place of business host any video I want on it's site and claim I'm being oppressed if they refuse?

The difference is that editorial outlets are responsible for the content they publish. If, for instance, Fox News or Breitbart circulate slanderous material they can be held liable in court. By contrast, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are not typically answerable for the content which appears on their platforms: the creators or uploaders are. When social media companies start censoring or removing material which isn't illegal, they move from being impartial service providers to being editorial publishers. This means that they ought to be held to the same standards as other traditional media sources.

[Cookiegod]

'McCarthyism" doesn't mean anything, except to those adversely -though not unjustly- affected.

Don't assume what I do or don't endorse, cookieperson.

That said, the actual data of the investigation is very telling. Quite different from what you understand.

Dude, I'm pretty sure I understand what you endorse very well.
You just confirmed it.

I am of two minds on the subject actually. I don't like the idea of the government forcing you to do business with someone. But I can see why it is sometimes necessary, as otherwise we'd still have white only establishments and Jim Crow laws.

That ambiguity didn't really answer my question. Should businesses be allowed total freedom to refuse service? If that should be

As for your second point, you of course know that both Brietbart and Fox also have videos on their sites. Whether or not they are social media is irrelevant. You can't simply dismiss my point. If Youtube can be forced to pay money to host a video, why can't they? Why couldn't I demand that your place of business host any video I want on it's site and claim I'm being oppressed if they refuse?

Contrary to right-wing propaganda, we liberals don't see corporations as inherently bad things.

1) I don't get why "liberals" pretend to be left, then.
2) It's not about "inherently bad", it's about human nature. Everything that can be abused, will be abused.

It's only when they try to buy political influence to get around the laws that prevent them from abusing their employees, cheating their customers, and poisoning the environment that we have a problem with them.

What greater political influence can you gift them than almost total control over public discourse?

For me, this is not about left vs right. It's oligarchy vs democracy, it's mob rule vs rule of law, it's authoritarianism vs liberalism.
Supporting such censorship puts you on the wrong side of that dichotomy.

The opposing sides here constantly talking about left and right shows me how warped all those terms have become. Neoliberalism (which is what this really is) & neoconservativism are to me virtually indistinguishable.

[Cookiegod]

Yeah, no, you don't understand anything, either of what I endorse, or the history of that era, 'dude'.

What is it then I got wrong about you?

[Captain Arrrgh!]

What is it then I got wrong about you?

Why would I want to spoon feed any of you?

I'm enjoying watching you all debate within the parameters of the tiniest Overton aperture, while your world crumbles into a halachic hellish mix of Weimar and 700s Iberia.

[Cookiegod]

Well, you did spoonfeed it to me:

'McCarthyism" doesn't mean anything, except to those adversely -though not unjustly- affected.

on par with various other statements by you.
Bottom line being you support the persecution of political opponents, expressly McCarthyism, and hate muslim immigration.

Not that it matters. By refusing to clarify, you allow us to assume whatever we want about you. Not that anyone cares that much about you.
I only do because it's so hilarious that you and those on the other side support the same policy. You just don't agree on who the victim should be.

But since you don't want to contribute.