anyone else getting sick of YouTube's shit?

[PartyOf5]

I already posted this in the Youtube stuff thread. I guess we need multiple threads dedicated to Youtube.

[PartyOf5]

*Private company changes rules of conduct for using its services.*

You guys: "Next thing is gulags! Private companies not giving me the right to use their product however I want is Marxism! I have rights! I'm part of a victim group!"

*yawn*

Maybe what you really need is public ownership internet? Because what you want, a private company offering its services to you not just for free but also on all of your terms.... fuck off with that spoiled, entitled, helicopter-parented, snowflakey way of thinking.

Yes, because we all know that private companies have the right to serve who they want and make their own rules. Quick, scrub the internet of all references to the cake shop that was forced to serve gays.

Not to mention the problems with multi-billion dollar private companies essentially coercing other, smaller private companies to change their rues so that the truly little entities that may not even be companies are forced out of all the common avenues of communication. Sure they can set up their own web site, but once the common avenues have shut them off (television, radio, Google, YT, facebook, twitter, etc.) they are essentially screaming in outer space while the "approved" messages are push notified to our phones and laptops, pop-ups placed on web pages, ads we can't skip on over the air tv and our streaming services, and pervasive in every basic media interaction in our lives. "They" want to control us, and these rebels are slowing that down by giving us other viewpoints to contemplate.

Government ownership isn't the answer, but something has to be done to prevent things form turning media into compete propaganda, which will resemble ownership by the government, just done via private companies that agree with them.

[BjornP]

Yes, because we all know that private companies have the right to serve who they want and make their own rules. Quick, scrub the internet of all references to the cake shop that was forced to serve gays.

Yeah, that's the problem with protected groups with their own legal status, usually because they're part of a group that the State has harrassed or discriminated against in some form of another, in the past. I never said I approved of all those major media companies and providers preventing certain voices from being heard online. It's just that I think you're whining about something that those companies are entirely in their right to do, and yet you use words like "censorship" which is when the State censors you, Martin Hash deleting your (or my) post here, for example, isn't censorship.

If people who has had their social media profiles or YT channels shut down, and believe it's a breach of contract (YT or whatever social media's Terms of Service agreement), they can and should sue.

Not to mention the problems with multi-billion dollar private companies essentially coercing other, smaller private companies to change their rues so that the truly little entities that may not even be companies are forced out of all the common avenues of communication. Sure they can set up their own web site, but once the common avenues have shut them off (television, radio, Google, YT, facebook, twitter, etc.) they are essentially screaming in outer space while the "approved" messages are push notified to our phones and laptops, pop-ups placed on web pages, ads we can't skip on over the air tv and our streaming services, and pervasive in every basic media interaction in our lives. "They" want to control us, and these rebels are slowing that down by giving us other viewpoints to contemplate.

Government ownership isn't the answer, but something has to be done to prevent things form turning media into compete propaganda, which will resemble ownership by the government, just done via private companies that agree with them.

You're not entitled to an audience. If your marketing can't compete, if you can't gain an audience via the common avenues, if the alternate avenues can't reach a big enough audience, or if you can't build an avenue yourself for all those many non-mainstream voices.... well, that's capitalism for you, isn't it?

Note that I didn't say government ownership. For example, the BBC isn't owned or run by the current British PM's office. Could work like that. I do not consider capitalism anything more than an efficient way to organize an economy. That is its best and only use, and it provides no answers to all the many other questions in any given society. Nor needs to. You don't and wouldn't suddenly become Socialist by having a nationalized fiberoptic cable network - or whatever's the 2019 version of cutting edge digital infrastructure. If you nationalize everything, and ban private ownership, sure, that'd be Socialist, but otherwise you're not suddenly gonna sleepwalk into having murals of Soviet style Communist art on every wall in your towns and cities or something. Capitalism is meant to be flexible.

But if you're afraid that experimenting, mixing a little private with a little public, will turn you into North Korea then... hey, don't try it. You could also, go co-op. We got a retail chain, which is technically still a co-op. Began as a small co-op of daily store grocery shops in 1866, now it's one of the biggest chains in Denmark. If you want it to stay entirely private, entirely government-free, go co-op. Co-op media avenues for your co-op media products.

"Be the change you want to see"

(Or..you can keep presenting yourself as political victims. Next you can hold Pride parades about how "brave" you all are for being openly right-wing, wear dick-hats, and accuse dissenters of being Christophobic Leukophobes (look it up) who rape and beat men. And finally, you'll braid each other's beards in a massive sit-down circle with StA crucifying himself in the center, screaming: "LOOK! LOOK! Look what women MAKE US DO TO OURSELVES!". )

[PartyOf5]

You're not entitled to an audience. If your marketing can't compete, if you can't gain an audience via the common avenues, if the alternate avenues can't reach a big enough audience, or if you can't build an avenue yourself for all those many non-mainstream voices.... well, that's capitalism for you, isn't it?

There is so much you do not seem to understand, but let's limit it to just the above quote to start.

These content creators DO have an audience. That is not the problem. They are not being banned, having their content deleted, or being demonetized because they lack an audience. They are going to be shut out of other avenues because the ones that control the avenues are left wing lunatics intent on controlling the masses. There are no other avenues once this kind of action spreads. Let's say a banned conservative sets up their own website and creates content bashing Carlos Maza. Now he goes to the company that hosts the site and gets them to cave and remove it. So they set up their own server and host it themselves. Now Maza goes to the ISPs for facilitating and gets them to shut down any traffic or connection to the site. Every avenue is controlled by either the government or a large corporation that has the power to shut you down, and they are proving that they are willing to do so.

This is how people like you willfully walk into Socialsm or Fascism or whatever term you want to call it when the rich and the government control what you can say, so, and think.

[BjornP]

You're not entitled to an audience. If your marketing can't compete, if you can't gain an audience via the common avenues, if the alternate avenues can't reach a big enough audience, or if you can't build an avenue yourself for all those many non-mainstream voices.... well, that's capitalism for you, isn't it?

There is so much you do not seem to understand, but let's limit it to just the above quote to start.

These content creators DO have an audience. That is not the problem. They are not being banned, having their content deleted, or being demonetized because they lack an audience. They are going to be shut out of other avenues because the ones that control the avenues are left wing lunatics intent on controlling the masses. There are no other avenues once this kind of action spreads. Let's say a banned conservative sets up their own website and creates content bashing Carlos Maza. Now he goes to the company that hosts the site and gets them to cave and remove it. So they set up their own server and host it themselves. Now Maza goes to the ISPs for facilitating and gets them to shut down any traffic or connection to the site. Every avenue is controlled by either the government or a large corporation that has the power to shut you down, and they are proving that they are willing to do so.

This is how people like you willfully walk into Socialsm or Fascism or whatever term you want to call it when the rich and the government control what you can say, so, and think.

Not that I know who Carlos Maza is, but from the context I can guess he's some bigshot leftwing nut. You say he can go to the company that hosts the site and get them to cave and remove the conservative content? Ok...how does he do that? And why does the host remove it? Is it legal issues, does Maza threaten to sue them?

Government has no "control" over what anyone in any Western country thinks. That's you being a hysterical drama queen, pining for the biggest victimhood status above them all, the Top Victim Trophy. All your thoughts are your own. America isn't China nor becoming anything like it.

"Every avenue is controlled by either the government or a large corporation that has the power to shut you down."

Bullshit about the first statement - that's a drama queen victimhood excuse for your own lack of initiative, and as for the second part... so what? You're presenting that as if it's a problem? Dude, it's beautiful. You just hate it because you're losing, because you feel a company should cater to you and your views, and not the other moronic, simple-minded, crowd of hysterical SJW's. It's the entitled Napster generation mentality. "Everything online should be free, because I'm speshul, because the big companies are such bad guys, and I'm the good guy. ". Well, if the companies are doing something you imagine is unfair to you, either use what is supposed to your goddamn government on them, if you feel so discriminated against OR find a way to compete. And if your government betrayed you, then use your 2nd amendment and get to civil warring... or shut up if you're not gonna do any of these things (or help anyone who does).

[pineapplemike]

You just hate it because you're losing, because you feel a company should cater to you and your views, and not the other moronic, simple-minded, crowd of hysterical SJW's.

lol no one thinks this, practically every right winger that's been banned would advocate for lefty SJWs to be able to post on twitter. right wing internet kids arent afraid of ideas or debate, its the lefty internet kids that want to censor the other

[C-Mag]

*Private company changes rules of conduct for using its services.*

It depends on how you view YouTube. Is it a private company or is it a public accomadation ?
That's where the legal arguments will be.

[BjornP]

You just hate it because you're losing, because you feel a company should cater to you and your views, and not the other moronic, simple-minded, crowd of hysterical SJW's.

lol no one thinks this, practically every right winger that's been banned would advocate for lefty SJWs to be able to post on twitter. right wing internet kids arent afraid of ideas or debate, its the lefty internet kids that want to censor the other

Didn't say I thought they (the right) wanted to ban and censor the left. Just that they, too, feel entitled to getting their views heard on someone else's privately owned platform. I agree that it's the (mostly Anglophone, though) lefty kids who got a boner for censorship and intolerance of even moderately difference views. If a social media platform writes a user agreement that the consumer agrees to, the consumer is obligated to do follow those guidelines. If it's the company that's not offering the service they promised, then maybe they can be sued. Not sure if, legally, one can actually sue if no money's been exchanged for a service..), but.. hey, not my area of expertise. Just tired of the "It can't ever be done" mentality on display. You got everything you need. You live in the world's richest country, one of the most peaceful, crime-less, least polluted, most stable, most free countries in the world. And yet people here are whining about being oppressed and not having any freedoms as if they were living in China or North Korea... or Britain.

[BjornP]

*Private company changes rules of conduct for using its services.*

It depends on how you view YouTube. Is it a private company or is it a public accomadation ?
That's where the legal arguments will be.

I get YT is huge and controls a large share of the world market and all, but are you suggesting that this makes it a public accomadation? Simply being big and dominating the market? The question should be whether you have a right to share, view and upload videos, text or audio discussing unpopular views, and not how many views a video could get on f.ex. YT versus some nameless, small videoupload-site. You have a right to talk, but not the right to be large audience. YouTube doesn't, and shouldn't become seen as a public service simply because they're so popular, dominant and videos there can reach more people.

[Speaker to Animals]

It is not merely a market. Social network companies have seized control of the commons in public discourse. They are shutting people out of the public square they do not agree with. They can influence the outcomes of elections.

Defending this as "just a private company exercising their rights" represents a preeminent example of shekel cuckery.