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.
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.