ARJ Defense ad

Anyone else going to stop using YouTube?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • F350-6

    TGT Addict
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    May 25, 2009
    4,237
    96
    That’s a heck of a straw man you’ve just knocked down. Glad neither one of us (easy rider or myself) were arguing to “let that happen”. I would be happy to help you pull the stuffing out of that scare crow but it would be kind of a waste of time.


    My arguments have been that YouTube, etc have reached the point that they are no longer simply platforms but an integral part of the first amendment. An opinion that is supported by recent SCOTUS decisions.

    The other way to look at it is that those platforms are vital to public discourse and interaction (backed up by SCOTUS opinion) and therefor should be treated in the same manner as other public utilities. No other utility may bar use because they dislike what you say.


    The last line of your post.

    “My interest here is strictly in their censorship because it's something I don't agree with.”

    It’s odd that you would make that statement after criticizing the idea of not censoring someone. If you don’t agree with censorship, why on earth would you promote censorious activities? Taking such action would do nothing to reduce the issues we have now, it would only create more. A censorship war would not end with everyone silenced and an effective end to the first amendment, and I’m sure there would be some still claiming it was fine because the government didn’t do it.

    You seem to believe that just because of a couple of SCOTUS rulings that youtube is still a place for free speech. That's where we differ in opinion. The censorship has already started in my mind. Regardless of what the courts say. If youtube is really an integral part of the first amendment, then why do we constantly read news stories about right leaning channels being suspended?

    My position is, if the censorship has already started, shut the whole thing down. Both sides. Move on to a new platform that is actually a level playing field. That's the only way to ensure the new guys learn from the mistakes of the old guys.

    But everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I'll respect yours. You keep watching youtube because SCOTUS says they're not supposed to censor the right. It's apparent to me from the OP, that others are starting to look for other venues due to the already existing censorship you don't want to admit is already in place.

    But any help with my scarecrow would be appreciated.
     

    gshayd

    Ugliest house on the block.
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 25, 2018
    1,307
    96
    Beaumont, Texas
    Youtube has a lot of instructional videos that have allowed me to do repairs to home appliances and other stuff. So No....

    A forum owned by a private person or company on the internet can be subject to the whims of that person. If you want the freedom of speech on the internet start your own forum and let people say what they want to. However, you will end up banning some people because they are not civil and are bat shat crazy.
     

    Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,613
    96
    hill co.
    You seem to believe that just because of a couple of SCOTUS rulings that youtube is still a place for free speech. That's where we differ in opinion. The censorship has already started in my mind. Regardless of what the courts say. If youtube is really an integral part of the first amendment, then why do we constantly read news stories about right leaning channels being suspended?

    My position is, if the censorship has already started, shut the whole thing down. Both sides. Move on to a new platform that is actually a level playing field. That's the only way to ensure the new guys learn from the mistakes of the old guys.

    But everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I'll respect yours. You keep watching youtube because SCOTUS says they're not supposed to censor the right. It's apparent to me from the OP, that others are starting to look for other venues due to the already existing censorship you don't want to admit is already in place.

    But any help with my scarecrow would be appreciated.

    You are once again arguing against a straw man.

    I never once said I watched YouTube because of a SCOTUS opinion. Nor did I say that the opinions expressed to this point are stopping YouTube from doing what they have been.

    I did say that the opinions are paving the groundwork for new legislation that could limit YouTube and other platforms ability to censor.


    I appreciate that you respect my opinion, but I would appreciate it more if you would accurately describe it based on what I’ve posted and not the arguments you would prefer to knock down instead.

    As far as knocking YouTube down, I don’t believe it will happen. Last I heard it was a net loss anyways. That may have changed though. Google will continue to support it and google isn’t going anywhere.

    Facebook, Twitter? They will either buy the competition or work with the other platforms as well as leftist media in order to cut off every avenue to hosting and funding.

    These platforms have become so large and with so many tendrils they can control the competition.


    The video posted above really is a good overview of the issues with their private platform claim as well as the governing laws. A large issue being that they are offered protections because as a service the speech posted is not considered their own as would be the case for a publisher. They can’t be held responsible for anything posted. At the same time they claim they shouldn’t have to allow speech they disagree with because they it violates their free speech rights. They are attempting to claim to realities exist at the same time in order to claim to conflicting protections.

    I can’t make you, but I urge you to watch the vid. If you choose to simply not use the service based on their actions I can respect that. But I don’t think these platforms will be taken down by any sort of protest or strike. They are massive, multinational, coordinated, and supported by other industries.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    F350-6

    TGT Addict
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    May 25, 2009
    4,237
    96
    You are once again arguing against a straw man.

    I never once said I watched YouTube because of a SCOTUS opinion. Nor did I say that the opinions expressed to this point are stopping YouTube from doing what they have been.

    I did say that the opinions are paving the groundwork for new legislation that could limit YouTube and other platforms ability to censor.

    The conversation started long before SOCUTUS was brought up. You're against fighting back by trying to censor the other side in response to their censorship. That's where this all started.

    And thank you, but I'll pass on your video. I was just commenting on a thread posted by someone else and throwing my thoughts in there. I didn't quit youtube because of all this. I never started youtube. Sure I've seen a few videos before, but my youtube time over the last several years could be counted in minutes per year, not hours, so don't take offense to me not watching your video.
     

    easy rider

    Summer Slacker
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 10, 2015
    31,489
    96
    Odessa, Tx
    You're against fighting back by trying to censor the other side in response to their censorship.
    Are you saying that censorship should be fought with censorship?

    Is that like saying that fascism should be fought using fascism? That's what antifa does.

    I certainly never heard a good explanation where two wrongs make a right.
     

    Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,613
    96
    hill co.
    The conversation started long before SOCUTUS was brought up. You're against fighting back by trying to censor the other side in response to their censorship. That's where this all started.

    And thank you, but I'll pass on your video. I was just commenting on a thread posted by someone else and throwing my thoughts in there. I didn't quit youtube because of all this. I never started youtube. Sure I've seen a few videos before, but my youtube time over the last several years could be counted in minutes per year, not hours, so don't take offense to me not watching your video.

    It’s not my video, my channel is nothing more than some RC plane stuff and splattered rabbits for sharing with friends.


    Not offended that you don’t watch it either. I was just giving you an easy opportunity to become more educated on the issues surrounding social media censorship and how they relate to the first amendment. I have no reason to be offended by your decision to watch it or not.





    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    Double Naught Spy

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 4, 2008
    1,043
    96
    North Texas
    At the same time they claim they shouldn’t have to allow speech they disagree with because they it violates their free speech rights. They are attempting to claim to realities exist at the same time in order to claim to conflicting protections.

    Maybe so, but in the grand scheme, it is their house. Regardless of the reasons they give, they get to make the rules. They get to change the rules. Their rules don't have to make sense. Users and creators on the site are there as guests, nothing more. Folks can try to reason with YouTube, but there isn't going to be any way to force them into being more gun friendly.
     

    Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,613
    96
    hill co.
    Maybe so, but in the grand scheme, it is their house. Regardless of the reasons they give, they get to make the rules. They get to change the rules. Their rules don't have to make sense. Users and creators on the site are there as guests, nothing more. Folks can try to reason with YouTube, but there isn't going to be any way to force them into being more gun friendly.

    I think you misunderstand the issue. They are protected from defamation lawsuits because they claim they are not publishers.

    They also claim they are publishers in order to get the advantages that go along with being a publisher.


    It’s not that they can’t censor what is posted. It’s that doing so should classify them as publishers and remove the protections they currently have. That law applies to every other publisher in the United States.

    If they wish to keep the protections they have then they should stop operating as a publisher and operate as an open platform which they claim to be in order to avoid the defamation lawsuits they would deal with as a publisher.


    It’s like running your business out of your home and not allowing a certain race to enter by claiming you can control who can enter your home, but at the same time claiming it is a business storefront on your taxes to save money.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    easy rider

    Summer Slacker
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 10, 2015
    31,489
    96
    Odessa, Tx
    Maybe so, but in the grand scheme, it is their house. Regardless of the reasons they give, they get to make the rules. They get to change the rules. Their rules don't have to make sense. Users and creators on the site are there as guests, nothing more. Folks can try to reason with YouTube, but there isn't going to be any way to force them into being more gun friendly.
    After listening Mark Levin today, I actually think he makes some pretty good points.
    This is an excerpt on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter:
     

    Double Naught Spy

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 4, 2008
    1,043
    96
    North Texas
    I think you misunderstand the issue. They are protected from defamation lawsuits because they claim they are not publishers.

    They also claim they are publishers in order to get the advantages that go along with being a publisher.


    It’s not that they can’t censor what is posted. It’s that doing so should classify them as publishers and remove the protections they currently have. That law applies to every other publisher in the United States.

    If they wish to keep the protections they have then they should stop operating as a publisher and operate as an open platform which they claim to be in order to avoid the defamation lawsuits they would deal with as a publisher.


    It’s like running your business out of your home and not allowing a certain race to enter by claiming you can control who can enter your home, but at the same time claiming it is a business storefront on your taxes to save money.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    I am not misunderstanding the issue. What you are saying is an interpretation that isn't recognized at this point and may not be recognized. It is, at this stage, a hypothetical, just like Levin's statements. Just because people think it should be a certain way doesn't mean that it will ever be a reality.

    You see it as running a business out of your home and not letting a certain race enter. I see it as running a business and not letting a customer conduct church services inside the business.
     

    Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,613
    96
    hill co.
    I am not misunderstanding the issue. What you are saying is an interpretation that isn't recognized at this point and may not be recognized. It is, at this stage, a hypothetical, just like Levin's statements. Just because people think it should be a certain way doesn't mean that it will ever be a reality.

    You see it as running a business out of your home and not letting a certain race enter. I see it as running a business and not letting a customer conduct church services inside the business.

    It’s running a business while claiming to be a church for legal purposes.

    Businesses are liable for damages. These platforms are legally protected because they claim they are a certain type of platform, yet they do not operate as the type of platform those protections were designed for.

    They can operate as they please, but they shouldn’t be operating as a business and claiming the legal status of a church, to use your example.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    Double Naught Spy

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 4, 2008
    1,043
    96
    North Texas
    Until somebody takes them to task and proves that perspective, still just a hypothetical, and YouTube is free to continue to operate how they are. One can argue that what they are doing isn't right, but that doesn't change anything until they are taken to task.

    So far, YouTube does a fairly good job of handling lawsuits against them. For example, PragerU's claims of censorship got thrown out in 2018. They are trying a different tact, but I have my doubts they will do better with Plan B than they did with Plan A.

    In an interesting turn, YouTube is also being sued for NOT censoring fast enough...
    https://www.tubefilter.com/2019/03/...ch-lawsuit-council-muslim-faith-christchurch/
     

    kbaxter60

    "Gig 'Em!"
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 23, 2019
    9,907
    96
    Pipe Creek
    Is that like saying that fascism should be fought using fascism? That's what antifa does.
    Yeah, I think that's not quite correct. Antifa definitely is a fascist organization. But I don't think they are always fighting fascism...sometimes maybe. Like a popular conservative trying to speak at a liberal university? Maybe you identify that as fascism. Not me.
     

    easy rider

    Summer Slacker
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 10, 2015
    31,489
    96
    Odessa, Tx
    Yeah, I think that's not quite correct. Antifa definitely is a fascist organization. But I don't think they are always fighting fascism...sometimes maybe. Like a popular conservative trying to speak at a liberal university? Maybe you identify that as fascism. Not me.
    I'm saying that they claim to be fighting fascism using fascist tactics. Take them as you please.
     
    Top Bottom