Anyone else going to stop using YouTube?

[birddog]

Are you in collusion with Russia? We need an investigation!

Actually, yes, Some of the best programmers on the planet, by far.

Russians are good people. I used to collude frequently with some Ukrainians with the longest legs you’ve ever seen. I’m sure Trump would as well if he’d met them.

 

[Renegade]

A private site can restrict whatever speech it likes. The government " stepping in" would be a 1st amendment violation.

These "private sites" benefit from laws that protect them [immunity] from hosting illegal content (music, child porn, etc). The government can surely step in and take away those legal protections, and they will go down the drain faster than RoundUp.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I did put a like on your post, as I tend to agree.

Except that what YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook do is not really "moderating". It's censorship at the least and shadowbanning (worse, in my opinion) on a regular basis. Yes, they may do some moderating of some types of content that should be blocked (kiddie porn, for example), but I don't feel that's where their heart is. I ditched FB over a year ago, it was getting so bad. Twitter is getting almost as bad lately...

If you take away the ability for website owners to control the content on their websites, such as by having the government step in and tell YouTube they have to allow everything, it will force forums like this to be in the same boat.

Like it or not, the reason why YouTube has rules (and all the creators on YouTube agree to abide by their rules, just as we do here, lest we face getting in trouble) is to maintain control of their site in the manner that they see fit, just like here. Calling it moderation or censorship, doesn't really matter.

The problem with YouTube and many other sites is that they were like free crack. People got addicted. Now the dealer is demanding more (compliance) from the crackheads and the crackheads are upset. I am one of them, as well.

 

[Castle_Tejas]

I hope not. My channel is starting to grow. I don't want to start over.

Although I do hate the censorship.

What's your channel? I'll sub it!

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

[jrbfishn]

If you take away the ability for website owners to control the content on their websites, such as by having the government step in and tell YouTube they have to allow everything, it will force forums like this to be in the same boat.

Like it or not, the reason why YouTube has rules (and all the creators on YouTube agree to abide by their rules, just as we do here, lest we face getting in trouble) is to maintain control of their site in the manner that they see fit, just like here. Calling it moderation or censorship, doesn't really matter.

The problem with YouTube and many other sites is that they were like free crack. People got addicted. Now the dealer is demanding more (compliance) from the crackheads and the crackheads are upset. I am one of them, as well.

Moderating; letting folks voice a differing opinion without vulgarity and personal attacks and threats.

Censoring; Banning anyone with an opinion not like the owner. Allowing only one side to be heard.

Youtube doesn't ban groups like Antifa from making threats or false allegations. They have pretty much the same agenda.
Or videos about running down anyone but muslims. That's censorship. And discrimination.

Here, pretty much all religious discussion is forbidden. That's moderating.

There are big differences between the two words. In what they mean and in what they are meant to accomplish.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[TX OMFS]

What's your channel? I'll sub it!

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSmKR1TQd3Y84xocAn01bKw

I appreciate all the subs & views I can get. Thank you!

 

[birddog]

Considering the enormous amount of data that has transited the internet from its inception ,to the present, what are the odds that all of it. not just indexed webpages, but every single bit and byte, has been cached and is stored offline in a repository..

 

[Fosty 2.0]

And alas, now I'm hooked on Scotty Kilmer.

REV UP YOUR ENGINES!!!

 

[Fosty 2.0]

I still watch, but I tend to watch things the lefties hate.

If the channels I watch move then I will move with them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah at the moment I'm just cutting out the entertainment that I watch like video games and videos of people falling over, dogs eating watermelons etc.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Moderating; letting folks voice a differing opinion without vulgarity and personal attacks and threats.

Censoring; Banning anyone with an opinion not like the owner. Allowing only one side to be heard.

Youtube doesn't ban groups like Antifa from making threats or false allegations. They have pretty much the same agenda.
Or videos about running down anyone but muslims. That's censorship. And discrimination.

Here, pretty much all religious discussion is forbidden. That's moderating.

There are big differences between the two words. In what they mean and in what they are meant to accomplish.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

You can play the semantics card all you want. The bottom line is that it is their site, their property, and anybody posting on it has agreed to abide by their rules. If you don't play by the rules, you get your little hand slapped or you get removed. Nowhere is it stated that guests/members on the site have the right to post anything they want. Owners and accept or reject anything they want. PERIOD END OF GAME.

Let me quote from the Good Book Code of Conduct here. The definition varies, and I am cool with that.
https://www.texasguntalk.com/threads/forum-rules-and-code-of-conduct.64/
A Note About Censorship: No private citizen is capable of "censoring" anyone. A forum owner who rejects a member's post is fully within their free-speech rights to shape their forum however they like, through the approval of some submitted content and the rejection of other submitted content.

Censorship happens when a person is denied the ability to self-publish. Posting to a public forum that you do not own is not self-publishing. It the same thing as submitting a letter to the editor of a newspaper, which is not self-publishing. If a newspaper declines to publish a letter to the editor, that is not "censorship." It is the editor's right. The person who wrote that letter has the ability to publish it by other means, first and foremost by starting their own newspaper. This same principle is applied to online forums. A member is not "censored" online unless they are denied the ability to put up their *own* site, blog, forum, whatever it may be... and no private citizen can stop another from doing that. Everybody in the U.S. has the right to freedom of speech, but that right does not go to the extent of forcing some forum owner to carry it on their forums or servers. The rights of one person end where the rights of another person begin. If you agree that a forum owner can reject a submitted post (for whatever reason), then you are supporting the forum owner's freedom of speech. Censorship has nothing to do with it because the person whose post was rejected has not been denied the right to self-publish.

---

Self entitled people who whine about "censorship" in the context of somebody else's property makes me sick. Mostly what I see are people acting like snowflakes because their little feelings are getting hurt that somebody isn't letting them play how they want to play in a sand box that isn't theirs.

 

[easy rider]

You can play the semantics card all you want. The bottom line is that it is their site, their property, and anybody posting on it has agreed to abide by their rules. If you don't play by the rules, you get your little hand slapped or you get removed. Nowhere is it stated that guests/members on the site have the right to post anything they want. Owners and accept or reject anything they want. PERIOD END OF GAME.

Let me quote from the Good Book Code of Conduct here. The definition varies, and I am cool with that.
https://www.texasguntalk.com/threads/forum-rules-and-code-of-conduct.64/
A Note About Censorship: No private citizen is capable of "censoring" anyone. A forum owner who rejects a member's post is fully within their free-speech rights to shape their forum however they like, through the approval of some submitted content and the rejection of other submitted content.

Censorship happens when a person is denied the ability to self-publish. Posting to a public forum that you do not own is not self-publishing. It the same thing as submitting a letter to the editor of a newspaper, which is not self-publishing. If a newspaper declines to publish a letter to the editor, that is not "censorship." It is the editor's right. The person who wrote that letter has the ability to publish it by other means, first and foremost by starting their own newspaper. This same principle is applied to online forums. A member is not "censored" online unless they are denied the ability to put up their *own* site, blog, forum, whatever it may be... and no private citizen can stop another from doing that. Everybody in the U.S. has the right to freedom of speech, but that right does not go to the extent of forcing some forum owner to carry it on their forums or servers. The rights of one person end where the rights of another person begin. If you agree that a forum owner can reject a submitted post (for whatever reason), then you are supporting the forum owner's freedom of speech. Censorship has nothing to do with it because the person whose post was rejected has not been denied the right to self-publish.

---

Self entitled people who whine about "censorship" in the context of somebody else's property makes me sick. Mostly what I see are people acting like snowflakes because their little feelings are getting hurt that somebody isn't letting them play how they want to play in a sand box that isn't theirs.

I get all that, just like if I don't like the rules a store has, they have a right to make the rules, so I'll just go elsewhere. The thing is, what platforms can I go to that are like Google, Facebook and Twitter where I can get the same information that I do now? (with the exception of Twitter that I don't use).

 

[jrbfishn]

You can play the semantics card all you want. The bottom line is that it is their site, their property, and anybody posting on it has agreed to abide by their rules. If you don't play by the rules, you get your little hand slapped or you get removed. Nowhere is it stated that guests/members on the site have the right to post anything they want. Owners and accept or reject anything they want. PERIOD END OF GAME.

Let me quote from the Good Book Code of Conduct here. The definition varies, and I am cool with that.
https://www.texasguntalk.com/threads/forum-rules-and-code-of-conduct.64/
A Note About Censorship: No private citizen is capable of "censoring" anyone. A forum owner who rejects a member's post is fully within their free-speech rights to shape their forum however they like, through the approval of some submitted content and the rejection of other submitted content.

Censorship happens when a person is denied the ability to self-publish. Posting to a public forum that you do not own is not self-publishing. It the same thing as submitting a letter to the editor of a newspaper, which is not self-publishing. If a newspaper declines to publish a letter to the editor, that is not "censorship." It is the editor's right. The person who wrote that letter has the ability to publish it by other means, first and foremost by starting their own newspaper. This same principle is applied to online forums. A member is not "censored" online unless they are denied the ability to put up their *own* site, blog, forum, whatever it may be... and no private citizen can stop another from doing that. Everybody in the U.S. has the right to freedom of speech, but that right does not go to the extent of forcing some forum owner to carry it on their forums or servers. The rights of one person end where the rights of another person begin. If you agree that a forum owner can reject a submitted post (for whatever reason), then you are supporting the forum owner's freedom of speech. Censorship has nothing to do with it because the person whose post was rejected has not been denied the right to self-publish.

---

Self entitled people who whine about "censorship" in the context of somebody else's property makes me sick. Mostly what I see are people acting like snowflakes because their little feelings are getting hurt that somebody isn't letting them play how they want to play in a sand box that isn't theirs.

If you want to see semantics, look in the mirror.
I posted nothing about them having a right to "their house, their rules". Just the difference between moderate and censor.
What they are attempting to do is "censor". Period. Silence those that do not believe as they do. If they applied the same rules to others that they apply to consevatives, I would have no problem with it.

Apply the rules equally or not at all. Or et called out on it. Real simple. Wrong is wrong. Who or why is irrelevant. Period.
I am not disputing whether they have a legal or moral right to do what they are doing. Just what they are doing.

Applying the the rules to only one side is CENSORING and DISCRIMINATING. Period.


Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[birddog]

I get all that, just like if I don't like the rules a store has, they have a right to make the rules, so I'll just go elsewhere. The thing is, what platforms can I go to that are like Google, Facebook and Twitter where I can get the same information that I do now? (with the exception of Twitter that I don't use).

Reddit

 

[easy rider]

Reddit uses those platforms.

 

[Younggun]

You can play the semantics card all you want. The bottom line is that it is their site, their property, and anybody posting on it has agreed to abide by their rules. If you don't play by the rules, you get your little hand slapped or you get removed. Nowhere is it stated that guests/members on the site have the right to post anything they want. Owners and accept or reject anything they want. PERIOD END OF GAME.

Let me quote from the Good Book Code of Conduct here. The definition varies, and I am cool with that.
https://www.texasguntalk.com/threads/forum-rules-and-code-of-conduct.64/
A Note About Censorship: No private citizen is capable of "censoring" anyone. A forum owner who rejects a member's post is fully within their free-speech rights to shape their forum however they like, through the approval of some submitted content and the rejection of other submitted content.

Censorship happens when a person is denied the ability to self-publish. Posting to a public forum that you do not own is not self-publishing. It the same thing as submitting a letter to the editor of a newspaper, which is not self-publishing. If a newspaper declines to publish a letter to the editor, that is not "censorship." It is the editor's right. The person who wrote that letter has the ability to publish it by other means, first and foremost by starting their own newspaper. This same principle is applied to online forums. A member is not "censored" online unless they are denied the ability to put up their *own* site, blog, forum, whatever it may be... and no private citizen can stop another from doing that. Everybody in the U.S. has the right to freedom of speech, but that right does not go to the extent of forcing some forum owner to carry it on their forums or servers. The rights of one person end where the rights of another person begin. If you agree that a forum owner can reject a submitted post (for whatever reason), then you are supporting the forum owner's freedom of speech. Censorship has nothing to do with it because the person whose post was rejected has not been denied the right to self-publish.

---

Self entitled people who whine about "censorship" in the context of somebody else's property makes me sick. Mostly what I see are people acting like snowflakes because their little feelings are getting hurt that somebody isn't letting them play how they want to play in a sand box that isn't theirs.

A year ago I would have been liking your posts and commenting in agreement. I have seen a lot change since then though.

First, to your point about the newspaper. You are correct that they are a publisher. Publishers have different rules regarding what they publish than twitter or FB. Both of which argue that they should have the protections of a platform operating as a publisher. They refuse responsibility for what is published while curating the content as a publisher.

The rules they claim must be followed are not enforced with any sort of equality. Certain users can make physical threats, DOX, incite violence, etc with no recourse (ex:look at comments made about Covington kids) while others are banned for little or nothing. They also create rules that decide along ideological lines. They have rules against misgendering. For many that means calling anyone with a vagina a man or vice versa, on Twitter it means not calling someone whatever made up gender they slapped on their profile. That is not equal enforcement.

The other issue falls to the fact that an information monopoly has formed. When a new platform appears there is a coordinated effort to cause its failure. We saw this with Gab. If these large corporations are working to ensure there is no competition then we have major issues.

That leads in to the next issue. These platforms have become massive to the point that they are being used by other nations in an effort to influence US policy and elections. Removing a certain viewpoint from the discourse on a platform that wields such influence has a severely detrimental effect on the ability to be heard. It can’t be claimed that these platforms have enough influence to change elections while also claiming they are simply a private platform and irrelevant to the issues related to speech.


Add to that we have rulings that positions may not block users because it violates their 1st amendment rights. Would twitter banning that member not also be violating the right of an individual in the same way preventing them from airing a grievance. Yes, there are other ways but courts have already ruled that blocking a twitter account constitutes a violation.


It’s been ruled that in modern times Twitter/etc have taken over as the “public square” for discourse. These platforms are replacing the telephone to an extent. The telephone companies are private yet they are considered public utilities. What differentiates the public utility of the telephone from the public utility of Facebook/Twitter/YouTube?


FWIW, I don’t believe twitter have any responsibility to pay me or anyone else for a video. However, the bans when factored in with what I have posted above are an issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[easy rider]

A year ago I would have been liking your posts and commenting in agreement. I have seen a lot change since then though.

First, to your point about the newspaper. You are correct that they are a publisher. Publishers have different rules regarding what they publish than twitter or FB. Both of which argue that they should have the protections of a platform operating as a publisher. They refuse responsibility for what is published while curating the content as a publisher.

The rules they claim must be followed are not enforced with any sort of equality. Certain users can make physical threats, DOX, incite violence, etc with no recourse (ex:look at comments made about Covington kids) while others are banned for little or nothing. They also create rules that decide along ideological lines. They have rules against misgendering. For many that means calling anyone with a vagina a man or vice versa, on Twitter it means not calling someone whatever made up gender they slapped on their profile. That is not equal enforcement.

The other issue falls to the fact that an information monopoly has formed. When a new platform appears there is a coordinated effort to cause its failure. We saw this with Gab. If these large corporations are working to ensure there is no competition then we have major issues.

That leads in to the next issue. These platforms have become massive to the point that they are being used by other nations in an effort to influence US policy and elections. Removing a certain viewpoint from the discourse on a platform that wields such influence has a severely detrimental effect on the ability to be heard. It can’t be claimed that these platforms have enough influence to change elections while also claiming they are simply a private platform and irrelevant to the issues related to speech.


Add to that we have rulings that positions may not block users because it violates their 1st amendment rights. Would twitter banning that member not also be violating the right of an individual in the same way preventing them from airing a grievance. Yes, there are other ways but courts have already ruled that blocking a twitter account constitutes a violation.


It’s been ruled that in modern times Twitter/etc have taken over as the “public square” for discourse. These platforms are replacing the telephone to an extent. The telephone companies are private yet they are considered public utilities. What differentiates the public utility of the telephone from the public utility of Facebook/Twitter/YouTube?


FWIW, I don’t believe twitter have any responsibility to pay me or anyone else for a video. However, the bans when factored in with what I have posted above are an issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Add to that the fact that they are removing/ banning individuals for words, that not only are used by bigger sites, but are often just quotes from those sites. The rule for those that have huge followings are not enforced (especially those leaning left), while smaller sites are removed (mostly right leaning).

 

[F350-6]

Subscribing to get a list of alternative video sites just for reference. I don't think I average 1 video a month on youtube. Don't have twitter or myface either.

But all this talk has me thinking I need to go dig through my old books and see if I still have a copy of 1984. Probably worth reading again. I remember reading it for the first time (required in high school) and thinking, there's no way people in America would ever let things get this bad. Yet here we are.

 

[easy rider]

Subscribing to get a list of alternative video sites just for reference. I don't think I average 1 video a month on youtube. Don't have twitter or myface either.

But all this talk has me thinking I need to go dig through my old books and see if I still have a copy of 1984. Probably worth reading again. I remember reading it for the first time (required in high school) and thinking, there's no way people in America would ever let things get this bad. Yet here we are.

Not quite there yet, but 2024 is looking scary.

 

[candcallen]

If anyone has the time money and ability to put a huge cloud network together, the domain phuckyoutube.com is still available. This said I have a feeling big tech would road block your success more rabidly that the never trumpers have Tried to destroy Trump..

This brings us to the anti trust discussion. These companies didnt and couldn't act in such a discriminatory manner untill they became unchallenged monopolies.

It also raises an interesting question regarding weather the internet is infact a public utility and if companies can control access however they want. Also, when a company has a platform that is essentially the "new town square" and is marketed as such and then has become large enough to control the ability of any specific group ideology or even countries or whole continents assess to the ability to Express themselves where should the line be drawn?

Facebook YouTube and google could shut off whomever they want or control search and traffic in any way they want thus silencing people and groups. I personally think this is dangerous as its conditioning whole generations that speech and expression arent free and it's ok to silence that with which some find offensive. That my friends is an the single greatest assault on natural rights we face.

A small tidbit of history...
Remember the emergency decree Hindenberg allowed for Hitler after the fire in the Reichstag? It gave him the right to among other things suspend free speech. In the beginning the ability to shut off freedom of speech helped him more than anything to take full control and crush opposition. Remember, Hindenburg was public and clear in the beginning in his feelings that any person who hated and discriminated on the basis of race and ideology like Hitler did couldnt be allowed to have power. Incrementally he got it anyways. See a parallel here?

Access to what has become the main Avenue for free speech expression and exchange of ideas, thus free speech itself, cannot be allowed to be decided by arbitrary mob control. These outlets are clearly public forums and what they are doing is no less damaging than limiting free speech to zones or hecklers mobs stifling the ability to exercise natural rights.

This is the most dangerous of slippery slopes people. It's not as simple as a private company doing as it wishes. The government cant limit speech expression but it must also ensure free exercise of such rights. These large tech companies present a need to reevaluate these things. You have no rights of free speech if you're locked in a cell cut off from everyone and it's done specifically to stifle your rights.

Isnt Facebook or YouTube doing the same thing? Just a thought.

 

[pronstar]

If anyone has the time money and ability to put a huge cloud network together, the domain phuckyoutube.com is still available. This said I have a feeling big tech would road block your success more rabidly that the never trumpers have Tried to destroy Trump..

This brings us to the anti trust discussion. These companies didnt and couldn't act in such a discriminatory manner untill they became unchallenged monopolies.

It also raises an interesting question regarding weather the internet is infact a public utility and if companies can control access however they want. Also, when a company has a platform that is essentially the "new town square" and is marketed as such and then has become large enough to control the ability of any specific group ideology or even countries or whole continents assess to the ability to Express themselves where should the line be drawn?

Facebook YouTube and google could shut off whomever they want or control search and traffic in any way they want thus silencing people and groups. I personally think this is dangerous as its conditioning whole generations that speech and expression arent free and it's ok to silence that with which some find offensive. That my friends is an the single greatest assault on natural rights we face.

A small tidbit of history...
Remember the emergency decree Hindenberg allowed for Hitler after the fire in the Reichstag? It gave him the right to among other things suspend free speech. In the beginning the ability to shut off freedom of speech helped him more than anything to take full control and crush opposition. Remember, Hindenburg was public and clear in the beginning in his feelings that any person who hated and discriminated on the basis of race and ideology like Hitler did couldnt be allowed to have power. Incrementally he got it anyways. See a parallel here?

Access to what has become the main Avenue for free speech expression and exchange of ideas, thus free speech itself, cannot be allowed to be decided by arbitrary mob control. These outlets are clearly public forums and what they are doing is no less damaging than limiting free speech to zones or hecklers mobs stifling the ability to exercise natural rights.

This is the most dangerous of slippery slopes people. It's not as simple as a private company doing as it wishes. The government cant limit speech expression but it must also ensure free exercise of such rights. These large tech companies present a need to reevaluate these things. You have no rights of free speech if you're locked in a cell cut off from everyone and it's done specifically to stifle your rights.

Isnt Facebook or YouTube doing the same thing? Just a thought.

I can’t seem to find it, but was there (or is there a current case) involving the “town square” 1A argument that you described?

I recall reading about it a while back, but failed to follow-up on the outcome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro