YouTube Censorship is getting out of control..... - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14893857
The Immortal Goon wrote:Seems like Alex Jones was just drumming up fake drama to get idiots to feel sorry for him.


It's not his fault you have to hype the shit out everything just to get through to people. What Alex Jones does is effective and isn't any more dishonest or unethical than the "journalism" the MSM practices. And if he wasn't drumming up drama they would delete his channel, so it's not really fake so much as preemptive.
#14893877
Drlee wrote:Blackjack seems to enjoy bringing up irrelevant shit when he has no argument. Let's see. He hit on sex-change, the health care system and Nazis. Nothing short of weird.

I just took some of your more extreme beliefs and put them into juxtaposition with the notion that watching an Alex Jones video makes a person deluded. In order to know if someone is deluded for watching Alex Jones, you must have watched him yourself. So if your statement holds, you are calling yourself deluded.

Mark Dice had this to say:



However, even innocuous vloggers like Casey Neistat are complaining.

#14893888
Decky wrote:So you have no argument then? Facebook is clearly a private company, as is youtube (well part of a private company).


You guys kill me, I post links to SCOTUS cases where extensive arguments have been made and won and you just pretend like it's not there a few posts back for everyone to see. This is almost as daft as the time Drlee tried to pretend that abstracts don't mean what they clearly do mean or the time TIG tried to disprove the deep state by saying it doesn't exist because his fed brother has never mentioned anything about it to him :lol:
#14893892
Sivad wrote:...or the time TIG tried to disprove the deep state by saying it doesn't exist because his fed brother has never mentioned anything about it to him :lol:


I believe that was an example I used, not the entire premise of the argument. In fact, most of my posts had links and citations. Which is sort of generous as you and the other precious SJWs were flying off the handle that there was a conspiracy and ye should have been able to prove it.

For you to complain that people are not taking your whole argument into consideration is fair. To try and generate pity by not taking an entire argument into consideration is rather daft.
#14893901
Chat as much nonsense as you like, if the supreme court think facebook and youtube are part of the government rather than part of the private sector it doesn't make it true. Make your argument or give in. Why is it you think youtube is part of the government? Posting some shit by some senile old redneck in the supreme court is not an argument.
#14893921
The Immortal Goon wrote:Seems like Alex Jones was just drumming up fake drama to get idiots to feel sorry for him.


Morton Downey tried the same thing a few years ago saying Neo Nazi's beat him up in a restroom if memory serves. Turns out he beat himself up. :p Hopefully Jones will follow Mort down the rabbit hole
#14893946
4cal wrote:If you don't like YouTube, start your own streaming service. Boom; problem solved

I would normally agree, but the level of income needed to compete with YouTube is mind boggling. The only people who can hope to compete with it are other large corporations who would probably censor the same way. As a social democrat (in vague terms), I'm against that corporate monopoly on media distribution. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be much of a way around it. It simply takes a lot of capital, meaning that whoever does it is in charge.

Crowdfunding alternatives has failed. Though frankly, the amount of porn streamed online were combined into a free media distribution service, it would crush YouTube.
#14893960
Sivad wrote:You guys kill me, I post links to SCOTUS cases where extensive arguments have been made and won and you just pretend like it's not there a few posts back for everyone to see. ....


Please quote the text that supports your claim.

Also, explain how the first amendment applies to corporations that are outside the USA.

Thank you.

Also, it is very easy to not watch Youtube. If you do not like the fact that media companies follow their own agenda instead of actually giving a voice to everyone, then do not consume that media. There are no large media sources that give a voice to socialism or radical indigenous sovereignty, but I do not cry about censorship. I simply recognise that these are corporations who would not profit by such a message.

Finally, free speech does not mean that other private individuals have to give you a podium for you to express your beliefs.
#14893965
Again, I see the point of "they are a private company that can do as they please" angle, which I would, again, normally be OK with.

However. Consider if there were one newspa- er, one news source. For everyone. On the planet. Sure, there are smaller outlets, but 80% of the population with access to any news will get it from that source. Even if that source just publishes what people create, their ability to censor at all is a clear monopoly that I can't stand.

We can go back to Ma Bell or the proposed split of Microsoft that never took hold as precedent. That was just over physical phone networks and web browsers. YouTube is far beyond that on a censorship scare level, especially coupled with the rest of Google's services - ubiquitous search domination, reigning popular e-mail provider (both of which farm data) browser market domination, Android market share... etc etc. To ALSO give them sole power over one of the largest media companies on the Internet... that is way beyond what MS was taken to court for.
#14893968
But none of that is a problem in capitalism. In fact, everything is working exactly as it is supposed to work: Google is effectively dominating the market, and making money for its shareholders. The government is unable to regulate it, which also makes money for Google shareholders.

It does not make sense to ostensibly support a system and also complain when it works as it should.
#14893975
Pants-of-dog wrote:But none of that is a problem in capitalism. In fact, everything is working exactly as it is supposed to work: Google is effectively dominating the market, and making money for its shareholders. The government is unable to regulate it, which also makes money for Google shareholders.

It does not make sense to ostensibly support a system and also complain when it works as it should.

Then maybe, just maybe, the system is wrong.

Decky wrote:It is a shame people can't watch videos on other websites by typing something other than youtube into their browser... oh wait.

The issue isn't that no one can compete. The issue is that the resources to compete are insane and limit possible competition to companies large enough to have that much storage and bandwidth, and be monetized enough to attract a critical mass of content producers and advertisers. Maybe Amazon (it already has the backend and runs Twitch) or MS.

Bad deal for the people.
#14893976
You guys kill me, I post links to SCOTUS cases where extensive arguments have been made and won and you just pretend like it's not there a few posts back for everyone to see. This is almost as daft as the time Drlee tried to pretend that abstracts don't mean what they clearly do mean or the time TIG tried to disprove the deep state by saying it doesn't exist because his fed brother has never mentioned anything about it to him :lol:


:roll:

Uh no. What I said about your abstract is that you did not understand what the abstract meant, or the methodology behind it and you posted it as evidence that did not prove your point.

I'm sorry if your feelings got hurt.
#14893980
Pants-of-dog wrote:Come to the red side.

I'm technically still a capitalist in the sense of syndicalism, but otherwise pretty much a social democrat. Anyway, I feel that this is one of the conditions for government intervention.
#14893983
Zagadka wrote:Again, I see the point of "they are a private company that can do as they please" angle, which I would, again, normally be OK with.

However. Consider if there were one newspa- er, one news source. For everyone. On the planet. Sure, there are smaller outlets, but 80% of the population with access to any news will get it from that source. Even if that source just publishes what people create, their ability to censor at all is a clear monopoly that I can't stand.

We can go back to Ma Bell or the proposed split of Microsoft that never took hold as precedent. That was just over physical phone networks and web browsers. YouTube is far beyond that on a censorship scare level, especially coupled with the rest of Google's services - ubiquitous search domination, reigning popular e-mail provider (both of which farm data) browser market domination, Android market share... etc etc. To ALSO give them sole power over one of the largest media companies on the Internet... that is way beyond what MS was taken to court for.


YouTube is not a monopoly by any stretch.

It is simply arguably the most popular video streaming service.

Google has a video search function, which provides results for multitudes of video streaming services, despite their sole proprietorship over YouTube.

There are many similar streaming platforms out there in the exact same line of business as YouTube, like DailyMotion, Vemio, Baidu, and numerous others, which are both well known and exceedingly accessible (including via the aforementioned Google video search).

There are streaming videos available on news platforms, the facebooks, the VKs, etc., etc.

It is exceedingly simple to embed video which is autonomously hosted on websites, blogs, etc, using encoded videos.

There are also a multitude of specialty and/or subscription based video streaming services out there. I am personally currently subscribed to the FloPro service of FloWrestling, BTN2Go (by the Big Ten Network--for college sports--which I also use to watch wrestling). I likewise catch videos on Fite.tv (including some PPVs from time to time).

And then there are the Netflix, Hulus, Amazon Primes, etc.

YouTube is by no stretch a monopoly, and so your argument really doesn't apply at all, in my view.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 11
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Are people on this thread actually trying to argu[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]