Zizek Warns We're Slipping Into A New, Controlled Society - 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 ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15028035
Palmyrene wrote:Also YouTube is a private company. It doesn't have to do anything you tell it to.

Except pay taxes, conform to regulations on the environment, employment and trade... whoops it seems the voter through democratic processes actually can tell private companies what to do. WOW WHAT A REVELATION! I AM STUNNED! :lol:

I feel we have hit a new low here where the left hivemind will take a break from their relentless insistence on regulating private companies into non-existence ONLY to let them do left-leaning censorship.
#15028045
SolarCross wrote:Except pay taxes, conform to regulations on the environment, employment and trade... whoops it seems the voter through democratic processes actually can tell private companies what to do. WOW WHAT A REVELATION! I AM STUNNED! :lol:


Except most major private businesses avoid taxes and regulations whenever they can. And the democratic process os governed by lobbyists.

You got what you signed up for.

And based on your logic that baker has to bake a cake for that gay couple even if he doesn't want to.

I feel we have hit a new low here where the left hivemind will take a break from their relentless insistence on regulating private companies into non-existence ONLY to let them do left-leaning censorship.


There's quite frankly no such thing as a left hivemind. There is so much internal conflict between different "leftist" groups that the term itself is redundant.

And I'm an anarchist, I want to tear down the state and private companies. However pretending private companies have to care about what you think or what is ridiculous.

If anything it points out how hypocritical you are rather than anything about the "hurr durr left hivemind".
#15028078
Palmyrene wrote:Except most major private businesses avoid taxes and regulations whenever they can. And the democratic process os governed by lobbyists.

You got what you signed up for.

And based on your logic that baker has to bake a cake for that gay couple even if he doesn't want to.

Whenever they can is not so often. Voters are lobbyists. Without lobbyists it would not be a democracy would it?

Actually I have not signed up. I have not consented to be governed by westminster or anyone. I claim to be a freeman and so far no one has refuted it. That said if I were to sign up it would be to a constitutional monarchy like the UK. I have only minor complaints which prevent me from consenting at this time.

Palmyrene wrote:There's quite frankly no such thing as a left hivemind. There is so much internal conflict between different "leftist" groups that the term itself is redundant.

And I'm an anarchist, I want to tear down the state and private companies. However pretending private companies have to care about what you think or what is ridiculous.

If anything it points out how hypocritical you are rather than anything about the "hurr durr left hivemind".

It will never happen so you may as well get yourself a less crazy ambition. Actually aspiring to be the second coming of jesus or napoleon would be a more feasible ambition.

Private companies as a matter of fact do have to care about what regulators throw at them that is why they hire the lobbyists and teams of lawyers. If they didn't they wouldn't bother with the expense.

It remains that the exercise of censorship is the only thing the left actually wants to protect in what private companies do. That says it all.
#15028083
SolarCross wrote:Whenever they can is not so often. Voters are lobbyists. Without lobbyists it would not be a democracy would it?


Voters are not lobbyists because they don't influence the decisions of government officials via money or financial means and furthermore voters cannot influence government officials to do illegal things.

Actually I have not signed up. I have not consented to be governed by westminster or anyone. I claim to be a freeman and so far no one has refuted it. That said if I were to sign up it would be to a constitutional monarchy like the UK. I have only minor complaints which prevent me from consenting at this time.


Considering you support capitalism you would have to be fine with its side effects. You can't just have a society where those who hold the most capital and property have the most power and then expect those people to respect your freedom of speech.

That's a fantasy.

It will never happen so you may as well get yourself a less crazy ambition. Actually aspiring to be the second coming of jesus or napoleon would be a more feasible ambition.


Hold my beer.

Private companies as a matter of fact do have to care about what regulators throw at them that is why they hire the lobbyists and teams of lawyers. If they didn't they wouldn't bother with the expense.


That's not my point. My point is that companies will always try to subvert regulation. You know why there's so much regulations and red tape on business and taxes in Western countries? Because corporations and regulators have been playing cat-and-mouse for decades.

And now libertarians and other corporate figures like Trump are saying the tax system is "too complicated" when in actuality he just doesn't want to have to open a new bank account in a foreign country every fiscal cycle.

It remains that the exercise of censorship is the only thing the left actually wants to protect in what private companies do. That says it all.


No it doesn't. Liberals maybe but they aren't "leftists" in any sense of the word; you yourself are a liberal. Marxist-Leninists maybe but they're a minority by this point; they hold no power. Anarchists want to tear down private companies and states and then communalize the wealth so clearly that's not the case.
#15028124
In the Prager U video, Prager U's position is clearly stated that the issue is them claiming to be a public forum and operating like one when, in reality, they are operating like a publisher that has the right to deny publication and carefully curate their material.

Basically, they are false advertising and through this they also get all the benefits of being a public forum (which are substantial) while actually being more like a private publisher.

Molyneux has also pointed out that this is horrible to the people who signed up on the premise that it is a public forum because their huge investment in time and effort and all their plans are laid to waste by the platform being secretly discriminatory.

@Palmyrene , it's bad sleight of hand to ignore Prager U's actual position and pretend that it is something other than what it is.
#15028147
Verv wrote:In the Prager U video, Prager U's position is clearly stated that the issue is them claiming to be a public forum and operating like one when, in reality, they are operating like a publisher that has the right to deny publication and carefully curate their material.


Since when has YouTube claimed to be a public forum?
#15028148
Palmyrene wrote:Since when has YouTube claimed to be a public forum?


How does YouTube resemble a private publisher like The New York Times more than it resembles a public forum?

Interesting to see an anarchist to take it upon himself to defend the right of billion dollar mega corporations right to withhold services from regular people.
#15028197
Verv wrote:How does YouTube resemble a private publisher like The New York Times more than it resembles a public forum?


Both are private companies so I'm not sure that anyone has a right to dictate what they or how they operate other than themselves. This is how capitalism works.

Interesting to see an anarchist to take it upon himself to defend the right of billion dollar mega corporations right to withhold services from regular people.


This is about how capitalism works. If you don't like it then stop supporting it. If you still want it, then shut up and deal with it. It's not that hard.

My point is that it's hypocritical for PragurU to claim that companies don't have any obligation to their consumers due to being a private organization while simultaneously whining that a company isn't serving you.

And it's even more hypocritical for someone like you to support both actions and then complain to me, an anti-capitalist, about how I should be angry that a private corporation is acting like a private corporation.

It's almost satire.
#15028200
Palmyrene wrote:Both are private companies so I'm not sure that anyone has a right to dictate what they or how they operate other than themselves. This is how capitalism works.


So the United States is not a capitalist country because, in its laws, it distinguishes between open forums and private publishers, and it treats these two business classes differently?

This is about how capitalism works. If you don't like it then stop supporting it. If you still want it, then shut up and deal with it. It's not that hard.

My point is that it's hypocritical for PragurU to claim that companies don't have any obligation to their consumers due to being a private organization while simultaneously whining that a company isn't serving you.

And it's even more hypocritical for someone like you to support both actions and then complain to me, an anti-capitalist, about how I should be angry that a private corporation is acting like a private corporation.

It's almost satire.


I think you don't understand how the current laws function in the US, and how people work within the system.

The bad news is that you greatly misperceive the US and capitalism.

The good news is that the US is apparently not capitalist and you can stop disliking it for being capitalist.
#15028220
Verv wrote:So the United States is not a capitalist country because, in its laws, it distinguishes between open forums and private publishers, and it treats these two business classes differently?


YouTube is not a public forum. It's a corporation. They abid by different rules. Trying to pretend that YouTube is an open forum when it's not and when it hasn't claimed such is ridiculous.

You're only obfuscating the situation here. This is why no one gives you the benefit of the doubt.

I think you don't understand how the current laws function in the US, and how people work within the system.

The bad news is that you greatly misperceive the US and capitalism.

The good news is that the US is apparently not capitalist and you can stop disliking it for being capitalist.


I don't think you understand what a "company" is.

A company is not an open forum. A company doesn't have to give a shit about your free speech.

This is how capitalism works. Don't like it well too bad. You and whoever liked your post (probably blackjack) can go suck it.

If you support capitalism, you support everything about it including the right for private property holders to do what they want with their property.
#15028231
Palmyrene wrote:YouTube is not a public forum. It's a corporation. They abid by different rules. Trying to pretend that YouTube is an open forum when it's not and when it hasn't claimed such is ridiculous.

You're only obfuscating the situation here. This is why no one gives you the benefit of the doubt.


YouTube functions as a platform, not a publisher, because it is a place where users sign up with little to no hassle and then create content following some very basic rules about propriety and the likes. You can do this whether you want to make videos in Korean about cooking or whether you want to make videos in French about poetry. Your content can also be garbage and have no followers and zero revenue, or you can make videos that garner millions of views monthly and bring in tens of thousands of dollars per month.

Publishers have a legal obligation to ensure a minimal quality in the content they publish and are held responsible for it because they have oversight.

A public forum, like YouTube or politics forum dot org, isn't responsible for what users post, and this is a huge benefit to them being a platform for facilitating discussion.

When they claim to be publishers and thus have the right to discriminate against conservative content, they should forfeit their right to no responsibility over the content provided, and thus fundamentally change the nature of their platform and actually function as a publisher and not a public forum for videos. Or, they must be a public forum again.

That's what the lawsuit is about.


That's what's happening under US law, right?

So the US isn't capitalist?

I don't think you understand what a "company" is.

A company is not an open forum. A company doesn't have to give a shit about your free speech.

This is how capitalism works. Don't like it well too bad. You and whoever liked your post (probably blackjack) can go suck it.

If you support capitalism, you support everything about it including the right for private property holders to do what they want with their property.


A company doesn't have to care about my free speech, right, but if it is advertised and run as a public forum, to maintain the status of being a public forum and to be held to those standards, it has to then allow me free speech on its platform.

... If you think capitalism means specifically the super Libertarian stance of total tyranny over content and zero distinction between a private publisher and a public forum, then the USA isn't capitalist.

I think most even hard right republican types also support some amount of regulation. It's not like the Anti Trust Act has been targeted...

Here's the fun thing about it, too: let's say that even Prager U are extreme capitalists...

Just like how a communist had a right to buy an iPhone or to start a business and function within America, a hardcore capitalist who believes in total rights of business has the same protections as any other American, and can also sue YouTube under existing American regulations and law. Whew.

If you would like to start a revolution to make America more capitalist by your definition, be my guest.
#15028240
Verv wrote:YouTube functions as a platform, not a publisher, because it is a place where users sign up with little to no hassle and then create content following some very basic rules about propriety and the likes. You can do this whether you want to make videos in Korean about cooking or whether you want to make videos in French about poetry. Your content can also be garbage and have no followers and zero revenue, or you can make videos that garner millions of views monthly and bring in tens of thousands of dollars per month.

Publishers have a legal obligation to ensure a minimal quality in the content they publish and are held responsible for it because they have oversight.

A public forum, like YouTube or politics forum dot org, isn't responsible for what users post, and this is a huge benefit to them being a platform for facilitating discussion.

When they claim to be publishers and thus have the right to discriminate against conservative content, they should forfeit their right to no responsibility over the content provided, and thus fundamentally change the nature of their platform and actually function as a publisher and not a public forum for videos. Or, they must be a public forum again.

That's what the lawsuit is about.


That's what's happening under US law, right?

So the US isn't capitalist?


YouTube is not legally a platform or a public forum. It is a corporation, specifically one owned by Google. Google and YouTube's owners have complete control over YouTube because it is their private property.

Making up stupid BS about how YouTube is a public forum when it never said it was and how that this means that the state has to step in and interfer with someone's private property won't get you anywhere in this discussion.

A company doesn't have to care about my free speech, right, but if it is advertised and run as a public forum, to maintain the status of being a public forum and to be held to those standards, it has to then allow me free speech on its platform.


It does not advertise itself as such and has specific rules in place which it has written in the terms and services. It's not their fault you or PragurU didn't read it. It is not a public forum, it is a service run by a corporation. It is that corporation's private property.

... If you think capitalism means specifically the super Libertarian stance of total tyranny over content and zero distinction between a private publisher and a public forum, then the USA isn't capitalist.


Capitalism is the regime of private property and wealth accumulation. A fundamental part of private property is that it's private. You can't interfer in someone's private property, especially a corporation's. As long as they do not false advertise, a tech company in the US can make as many rules as they want for their users.

This is extremely basic shit but apparently you don't understand it.
#15028439
Palmyrene wrote:YouTube is not legally a platform or a public forum. It is a corporation, specifically one owned by Google. Google and YouTube's owners have complete control over YouTube because it is their private property.

Making up stupid BS about how YouTube is a public forum when it never said it was and how that this means that the state has to step in and interfer with someone's private property won't get you anywhere in this discussion.


There's a fundamental difference in terms of the contract between the consumer/user and the company when we are talking about whether something is an open forum or a private publisher, and there are different obligations for the business.

To prevent theft (either of goods or of services) and fraud and the breaking of deals, the government has a series of classifications for legal purposes.

YouTube actually operates like a public forum, or a "platform," in which people say and do what they want.

They are claiming, now, to be private publishers -- like the New York Times or Townhall Magazine or Donga Ilbo. But, in reality, this is only so they can freely regulate and squash any material that they want without a good reason. Everyone knows that they function like a public forum.

Do you follow?

It does not advertise itself as such and has specific rules in place which it has written in the terms and services. It's not their fault you or PragurU didn't read it. It is not a public forum, it is a service run by a corporation. It is that corporation's private property.


Really? It appears that there is a legal basis for their lawsuit and it is going through the courts. Likewise, Jared Taylor has a lawsuit going on against Twitter, and Stephen Crowder's lawyer has even done some stuff with YouTube. YouTube has made some concessions -- for instance, they unbanned BPS.

There appears to be real merit to the arguments.

it might even be the case that even if such text exists, they still have to be classified as a public platform, and they either need to apply the text very thoroughly and universally to all, or even change the text because it is not their right to offer the deal along those terms unless they assume a whole series of burdens they are unwilling to take on.


Capitalism is the regime of private property and wealth accumulation. A fundamental part of private property is that it's private. You can't interfer in someone's private property, especially a corporation's. As long as they do not false advertise, a tech company in the US can make as many rules as they want for their users.

This is extremely basic shit but apparently you don't understand it.


Tell that to the bakeries.

Tell that to the businesses that no longer could have separate facilities for blacks and whites. Tell that to the hotels in the sixties who didn't want ot rent to blacks, and the homeowners who didnt' want to sell to blacks.

... It seems that there's a lot about the United States that you do not understand, my Syrian sadeeq!
#15028443
Verv wrote:There's a fundamental difference in terms of the contract between the consumer/user and the company when we are talking about whether something is an open forum or a private publisher, and there are different obligations for the business.


YouTube never claimed to be a public forum and the term "public forum" is ambigious too. All the lawyers would have to do is bring out the legal documents and contracts that properly define what YouTube as a company is and Pragur would lose.

YouTube actually operates like a public forum, or a "platform," in which people say and do what they want.


No it doesn't and it has specific rules on what is and isn't acceptable on the platform. Read the terms of service.

Really? It appears that there is a legal basis for their lawsuit and it is going through the courts. Likewise, Jared Taylor has a lawsuit going on against Twitter, and Stephen Crowder's lawyer has even done some stuff with YouTube. YouTube has made some concessions -- for instance, they unbanned BPS.


I'm pretty sure the lawyer made other arguments other than "YouTube banned me for speech" because that doesn't hold up in court. That's why they made concessions and didn't give in to the actual demands of the suers.

it might even be the case that even if such text exists, they still have to be classified as a public platform, and they either need to apply the text very thoroughly and universally to all, or even change the text because it is not their right to offer the deal along those terms unless they assume a whole series of burdens they are unwilling to take on.


No it won't. They're a private corporation and all that paper work isn't going to go through the window just because some idiots on Twitter are making a stick about it.

At least Google won't let that happen.


Tell that to the bakeries.

Tell that to the businesses that no longer could have separate facilities for blacks and whites. Tell that to the hotels in the sixties who didn't want ot rent to blacks, and the homeowners who didnt' want to sell to blacks.

... It seems that there's a lot about the United States that you do not understand, my Syrian sadeeq!


Which is why I specified tech company and tech companies have made sure via lobbies and whatnot before hand that the same thing doesn't happen to them.
#15028447
Palmyrene wrote:YouTube never claimed to be a public forum and the term "public forum" is ambigious too. All the lawyers would have to do is bring out the legal documents and contracts that properly define what YouTube as a company is and Pragur would lose.


Why would it matter what YouTube claimed to be? It matters what they are.

No it doesn't and it has specific rules on what is and isn't acceptable on the platform. Read the terms of service.


And you think Prager U's video on the Ten Commandments violated that?

You are an anarchist who thinks that YouTube and their mod staff are beyond reproach? :lol: That authority is never abused, that it never goes above and beyond what it says it will do? :lol:

You sound a lot like a corporate bootlicker: just like most of the Antifa types these days.

No it won't. They're a private corporation and all that paper work isn't going to go through the window just because some idiots on Twitter are making a stick about it.

At least Google won't let that happen.
...
Which is why I specified tech company and tech companies have made sure via lobbies and whatnot before hand that the same thing doesn't happen to them.


So you are saying that Google owns the law?

... and kind of cheering for them here?

OK. :roll:
#15028455
Verv wrote:Why would it matter what YouTube claimed to be? It matters what they are.


It matters because that's whatever they're legally registered as and that's what's going to be brought up in court.

And you think Prager U's video on the Ten Commandments violated that?


They can do whatever they want. It's their property.

You are an anarchist who thinks that YouTube and their mod staff are beyond reproach? :lol: That authority is never abused, that it never goes above and beyond what it says it will do? :lol:


The most funniest part of this is that you think me describing to you how capitalism works is an endorsement of it.

lol

You sound a lot like a corporate bootlicker: just like most of the Antifa types these days.


Yeah, anti-corporate antifa is a corporate bootlicker.

Antifa's a brand anyways.

So you are saying that Google owns the law?

... and kind of cheering for them here?


I'm saying corporations control the law. That's what capitalism is, it's a hierarchy of wealth. Those with the most wealth hold the most power. How can support capitalism and simulatenously not know anything about it?

And I'm not cheeting for them. If it makes you feel better, in my anarchist society you'd be allowed to scream to the world that you want to murder all Muslims and no one would do anything to you.

All of this is just whataboutism.
#15028464
This actually goes back to one of the reasons that the Communists became completely irrelevant. Their analysis of Capitalism depended on Capitalists adapting to absolutely nothing & the idea that Capitalists 100% of the time would conduct themselves as an exploitive force for evil.

You are saying that, theoretically, private property should be absolute and YouTube have total control over who posts and what is posted. Reality dictates that there are actual obligations of businesses to their users, even their free users, and that what businesses can and cannot do has been tightly regulated since before even the Soviets could murder their first million people.

You have been wasting your time talking about theory as it does not apply to the United States.

And I'm not cheeting for them. If it makes you feel better, in my anarchist society you'd be allowed to scream to the world that you want to murder all Muslims and no one would do anything to you.


:lol: If you only knew who you were talking to.
#15028720
blackjack21 wrote:Indeed. PragerU released a video today detailing their suit against YouTube.



It lays out the case very nicely, and it makes me wonder if this is going to go to SCOTUS. If so, I'm betting that YouTube gets smacked down hard.

They aren't the only ones that are suing YouTube . Some LGBT YouTubers are going to be as well .
It's remarkable when such different groups of people have the same source of grievance .
#15028772
Palmyrene wrote:Holy shit you actually watch PragerU.

From time to time. The cited video is something they are advertising, so I'm guessing in time that there will eventually be a class action lawsuit against YouTube.

Palmyrene wrote:If I wanted an ideology that stroked my ego I would've become a fascist.

Why not a communist? They're the ones talking about cradle-to-the-grave big government loves you.

Palmyrene wrote:I actually was a corporatist for quite a while.

Before you were 15? What is quite awhile? Give me a better sense of the time duration.

Palmyrene wrote:It's impossible for a politician to keep his promises.

Most voters seem used to that fact.

Palmyrene wrote:How is that relevant? Fascism isn't about those things.

To the extent that politics is downstream from culture, social and economic developments have a profound effect on political developments.

Palmyrene wrote:Also YouTube is a private company. It doesn't have to do anything you tell it to.

YouTube is a publicly-traded company, which imposes one hell of a lot of obligations. If I own a share of Alphabet, I am a part owner of YouTube. So YouTube doesn't necessarily get to discriminate against me.

SolarCross wrote:I feel we have hit a new low here where the left hivemind will take a break from their relentless insistence on regulating private companies into non-existence ONLY to let them do left-leaning censorship.

Yeah, now we have 15 year old Syrian kids telling us how our companies should run. :roll: It's a strange world.

Palmyrene wrote:And based on your logic that baker has to bake a cake for that gay couple even if he doesn't want to.

The courts have already ruled for the baker. Publicly-traded corporations are an entirely different animal from individuals.

Palmyrene wrote:Hold my beer.

Don't you have to be 18 to drink in Syria?

Palmyrene wrote:Since when has YouTube claimed to be a public forum?

Why don't you just watch the Prager U video or read the lawsuit. It's detailed in the suit.

Palmyrene wrote:Both are private companies so I'm not sure that anyone has a right to dictate what they or how they operate other than themselves. This is how capitalism works.

Maybe in some book you read. The United States has plenary authority to regulate commerce.

Palmyrene wrote:YouTube is not a public forum. It's a corporation. They abid by different rules. Trying to pretend that YouTube is an open forum when it's not and when it hasn't claimed such is ridiculous.

It has claimed to be an open forum so that it can avoid liability for the wrongful actions of some people publishing material on their site. Just because you do not understand it doesn't mean that it isn't the case.

Palmyrene wrote:YouTube is not legally a platform or a public forum.

It claims public forum status to avoid liability.

Palmyrene wrote:Making up stupid BS about how YouTube is a public forum when it never said it was and how that this means that the state has to step in and interfer with someone's private property won't get you anywhere in this discussion.

Again, why don't you just read the suit and read up on the law so you can understand what you are talking about. YouTube does claim to be a public forum in order to avoid liability that would otherwise accrue to a publisher.

Palmyrene wrote:It does not advertise itself as such and has specific rules in place which it has written in the terms and services.

Yes, and those terms of service constitute a contract among other things. Changing the terms of service after the fact is generally unlawful for a party to do without consideration to the other party. YouTube's arbitrary actions will likely cause them to incur liability to content creators.

Palmyrene wrote:It's not their fault you or PragurU didn't read it.

Prager U did read the terms of service, and Prager U is also a private company.

Verv wrote:They are claiming, now, to be private publishers -- like the New York Times or Townhall Magazine or Donga Ilbo. But, in reality, this is only so they can freely regulate and squash any material that they want without a good reason. Everyone knows that they function like a public forum.

Prager U is claiming that YouTube is trying to be both, and the law doesn't allow for that.

Palmyrene wrote:YouTube never claimed to be a public forum and the term "public forum" is ambigious too. All the lawyers would have to do is bring out the legal documents and contracts that properly define what YouTube as a company is and Pragur would lose.

They do claim to be a public forum per the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Why don't your read some of their legal briefs and debate them.



Deutschmania wrote:They aren't the only ones that are suing YouTube . Some LGBT YouTubers are going to be as well .

It's remarkable when such different groups of people have the same source of grievance .

Yeah, I don't think the courts are going to allow YouTube to behave in an arbitrary manner indefinitely, but the courts will tread carefully.
#15028782
blackjack21 wrote:From time to time. The cited video is something they are advertising, so I'm guessing in time that there will eventually be a class action lawsuit against YouTube.


:lol:

PragerU is the worst place to get information on anything.

Why not a communist? They're the ones talking about cradle-to-the-grave big government loves you.


Because actual communist theory is none of that. That's just a stereotype on your part. Even Marxist-Leninism isn't anything like that.

Meanwhile fascist literature is entirely about validation. I've read Baathist books and they literally only talk about how great it is for you to be an Arab (i.e. me) and how superior Arabs are and how they will lead the world by combining the best parts of the East and West etc.

Just pure, unadulterated validation.


Before you were 15? What is quite awhile? Give me a better sense of the time duration.


Like, 3 years. I was posting on this forum during those times and I'm pretty sure we've talked too.

Most voters seem used to that fact.


Doesn't make it better or ok. Democracy sucks anyways. Fuck voters and fuck politicians.


To the extent that politics is downstream from culture, social and economic developments have a profound effect on political developments.


Yeah that doesn't answer my question. I'll say it again:

How is that relevant?

YouTube is a publicly-traded company, which imposes one hell of a lot of obligations. If I own a share of Alphabet, I am a part owner of YouTube. So YouTube doesn't necessarily get to discriminate against me.


Yes it does. Depending on how large your share is, you can't do jackshit. You have to take the bus like the rest of us.

Yeah, now we have 15 year old Syrian kids telling us how our companies should run. :roll: It's a strange world.


I'm telling you how they run now. It's not how they should run.

You people love capitalism only when it supports you.


The courts have already ruled for the baker. Publicly-traded corporations are an entirely different animal from individuals.


Still doesn't respond to my point.

Don't you have to be 18 to drink in Syria?


I've been drinking since I was kid. I generally don't like the taste though.

Why don't you just watch the Prager U video or read the lawsuit. It's detailed in the suit.


I've watched only one Prager U video which discussed art. This was the only Prager U video I've ever agreed with.

I'm not going to waste time reading a lawsuit that will fail anyways.


Maybe in some book you read. The United States has plenary authority to regulate commerce.


That doesn't mean they will. Remember, capitalism controls the government not the other way around.

It has claimed to be an open forum so that it can avoid liability for the wrongful actions of some people publishing material on their site. Just because you do not understand it doesn't mean that it isn't the case.


Where has it claimed to be an open forum at all?

It claims public forum status to avoid liability.


Where?

Again, why don't you just read the suit and read up on the law so you can understand what you are talking about. YouTube does claim to be a public forum in order to avoid liability that would otherwise accrue to a publisher.


Where?

Yes, and those terms of service constitute a contract among other things. Changing the terms of service after the fact is generally unlawful for a party to do without consideration to the other party. YouTube's arbitrary actions will likely cause them to incur liability to content creators.


They probably didn't change the terms and service. The terms and service has stayed the same.

Prager U did read the terms of service, and Prager U is also a private company.


Clearly they didn't if they're going through with the lawsuit.

Also PragerU claims to be a university too so I wouldn't be surprised if they're lying about being a company.

They do claim to be a public forum per the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Why don't your read some of their legal briefs and debate them.




Yeah, I don't think the courts are going to allow YouTube to behave in an arbitrary manner indefinitely, but the courts will tread carefully.


Where do they claim to be a public forum?
EU-BREXIT

The 2016 referendum is not history, it has yet […]

Canadian Federal Election

Just out of curiosity, do Chileans care about Arg[…]

No that's just a scam that has just been debunked[…]

Why are Assad and Russia letting Turkey do this? […]