Longer Explanation Here - https://youtu.be/S1A2sXzSw7M
Was Youtube Right To Ban Him?
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
maz wrote:The speech that is now taboo and is to be banned on YouTube was formally accepted speech in normal society.Complete bullshit!
maz wrote:When the LGBT community began getting censored due to changes in YouTube's policies, they whined and YouTube capitulated because there is no longer an issue with the taboos of the LGBT community. It is a safe topic that is endorsed by every Fortune 500 company.
maz wrote:If YouTube had existed in the 80’s they would banning Ozzy Osbourne, Public Enemy and Guns N Roses and anything anti-government.No. They'd be much like MUch Music and banning stuff like Queen, for dressing in women's clothing.
maz wrote:Now Youtube is explicitly pro-government and that includes pro LGBT, pro war, pro child trannies etc.FFS, do you have an argument, or are you just spouting mindless rhetoric? None of this is true.
Since the focus is on his being Alt Right, I am going to write this addressing the Alt Right angle.
I tend to agree with the idea that major media platforms should not function under the same set of rules that publishers do. I think there needs to be a new category for conceptualizing them -- 'social media' or 'media platform' or some such. This is where a site like YouTube or Twitter basically encourages people to post whatever content that they want that follows basic standards of decency (no smut or gore) and doesn't violate copyrights, but otherwise is simply them exercising their free speech and building a following. I am even open to the idea that there could be clearly banned or demonetized words for the sake of decency, but ultimately, if Joe Schmoe is being banned for politely stating edgy ideas, it's a violation of his first amendment right to make use of a media platform for his purposes the same way that everyone else is.
Generally speaking, we have to update the way that we conceive certain websites. Obviously, a pure media site is under no obligation to publish content it doesn't want to, and if someone creates the "Revolutionary Left Video Host" or some website obviously with an angle on it that is meant to limit content and promote a particular view, it can. But companies that are inviting humanity to come aboard and post whatever content they want in an effort to network and build a following making decisions after the fact to target unpopular beliefs with removal is not proper, IMO.
Youtube has a right to ban anyone on their servers. It is a privately owned company after all. However, as for freedom of expression, the decision is wrong.
Alt-right is a mainstream ideology in the West. It is like Youtube banned masses. Youtube's ban may backfire. It can be a marketing mistake.
late wrote:If it walks like an excuse, and quacks like an excuse, is it an excuse?
“Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.” - Noam Chomsky
Do you have some arguments on the topic you want to present? I may not have understood your point.
It is. You have an alt-right president. They are marching to be majority in Europe as well. Golden ages are ahead for alt-right.
Godstud wrote:So, @maz, it's all right for an extreme alt-right group to complain, but not for an extreme alt-left one to complain?
Everyone has a right to complain, but in the end, Youtube decides what does damage and what shouldn't be on their platform. if you don't like that, then tough beans.
Donna wrote:The issue was that YouTube's algorithms would mistake political or philosophical content about LGBTQ+ issues (for using tags such as 'gay', 'lesbian', etc.) with pornographic search terms, thus unfairly censoring that content.
It might seem like that to an actual brain-dead m[…]
To say something is futile is to take a moral sta[…]
Yes, democratic governance is fundamentally flawe[…]
@Jeremiah Squatpump It’s is very difficult to […]