anyone else getting sick of YouTube's shit?

[Ph64]

*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.

Here's the thing, I don't care what Facebook or Twitter or youtube do on their own platforms, if they want to post a big banned on their sign-up page saying "Don't sign up if you are conservative, we will remove you; don't sign up if you believe in free speech, we will remove you; don't sign up if you think anything outside of our progressive intersections Marxist view, we will remove you" , I would have ZERO problems with that.I

The only power they have is the power to stop you from speaking on *their* platform.

No, what bothers me is when you see alternatives - Gab & Minds as alternatives to FB/Twitter, BitChute as an alternative to youtube.... And then you see paypal, mastercard, Chase bank, etc, ejecting them and conservative voices from their "payment platforms". NOT for things done on their social platform, because (other than paypal) there is no way to post your social views on Chase.com or Mastercard.com, they don't host any type of social media platform - they are not just restricting your ability to speak on their single platform, but your ability to survive, to be a part of the financial system. That is far more destructive.

It's exemplified by what happened with Sargon last year - Patreon rejects him from their platform, mind you not for anything said on their platform, or even on Sargon's channel, but for one word used (twice) in a 2 minute span of an 1-1/2 hour discussion on someone else's channel. But ok, they were looking for any reason to get rid of him I'm sure anyways, I'll accept that even.

...then he signs up on SubscribeStar, a no-name little platform doing basically what Patreon does... One guy, moving to a tiny alternative with maybe 30 users in it... And suddenly PayPal and MasterCard are pulling out as their financial options - impacting not just Sargon but dozens of other creators *who did nothing wrong*. Their only "crime" in the progressive mindset is that they were using the playground for a year before Sargon showed up - and because Sargon showed up now "social justice" demands they come in with tractors and destroy the playground for everyone. And not just with a notice, "we're giving you 3 months to find other options, and then were pulling the plug" - nope, fuck you, you're cutoff as of right now for accepting one person we don't like, and all your other customers are screwed too.

So "progressive" and "caring".

" We don't give a flying fuck about who else gets damaged in the process, as long as we get our way. "

That irks me. Not giving a shit about who else gets hurt in the process of your personal vendetta does not impress me or make me think you are somehow "morally justified" in what you do.

So anyways, my point is I don't personally care if FB/twitter/youtube bans anyone, because the free market will create alternatives... I do care though when those alternatives get their financial services taken away, domains shut down, etc, by the cabal of social justice thinking.

[Speaker to Animals]

The network effect already guarantees that it's very difficult to create competition to these platforms. They are natural monopolies and should be regulated as such.

[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.

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.

You make good arguments. Under US law I see a lot of similarities between Big Tech and Ma Bell. Beyond the legal wranglings of either side, the question is what do we want for digital free speech and free access in the future.

Who is going to argue against wanting a future where there is free speech and free access to modern tech to have your say in the digital public square ?

[PartyOf5]

"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).

You spout so much crap I don't have the time to debunk all of it. So once again I'm going to limit my response to just one turd out of the pile of bullshit you just left.

That's one statement with an 'or', not two statements. What are the common avenues of communication? Over he air television, cable television, radio, print media, and the various internet avenues like YT, FB, Twitter, and individual websites. There are other smaller internet avenues, but remember, I said common avenues, not your right to stand in the street and talk.

The FCC does indeed watch over television and radio. To this point the government has not gone communist run with any of it. That's where the large corporations come in. Who gets a TV channel for politics and general news? You think I can simply start up a cable channel out of my basement? That is all controlled by large corporations with far left agendas. Print media is too, but that is almost dead anyways. Radio is just like television. Very little outlet for conservative views, even though the ones that are out there have huge followings.

So you are left with an internet that is controlled by far left corporations, just like television.

Your solution is to start shooting or STFU.

No one said anything about "everything should be free" just like no one said anything about wanting the government to control it. You are just spouting talking points you got from someplace other than here because no one is saying that here. Your posts come off as some kind of whiny tantrum more than anyone else in this thread.

[PartyOf5]

So anyways, my point is I don't personally care if FB/twitter/youtube bans anyone, because the free market will create alternatives... I do care though when those alternatives get their financial services taken away, domains shut down, etc, by the cabal of social justice thinking.

That's a part of what I was referring to by large corporations controlling the avenues of communication. I pretty much agree with what you said.

[Speaker to Animals]

A lot of people have no idea what they are even fighting here. Social media companies like YT and FB have completely locked down the network effect. There will not likely be any viable competition unless these companies go too far with their heavy-handed tactics.

[Speaker to Animals]

And that's not accounting for the fact that we are being censored at the domain hosting and even DNS level of the Internet.

edit: also the security level, with the only viable anti-DDoS services choosing to refuse protection to political dissidents.

[PartyOf5]

STA, I agree.

[Speaker to Animals]

And if you want to see the absolute ridiculousness of a shekel cuck, look no further than their blind ideological defense of not regulating these corporations for their shitty anti-social activities while simultaneously defending the patents and collusion that makes it doubly difficult to ever establish competition.

The shekel cuck will sit there and declare we shouldn't "interfere" with markets, expecting the magical free markets to solve these problems, while defending the very anti-free market constructs, namely patents and corporate collusion, that make competition so much less likely.

[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

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.

i agree that youtube and the rest can ban wjomever they want, most of what people are complaining about is the unfair enforcement of their rules. carlos meza is only the most recent example of someone tweeting calls for violence against conservatives but having youtube bend over backwards to protect him from criticism

i agree that the youtube/twitter personalities whining about censorship while still actively posting on youtube/twitter come off as entitled brats, but they like the platform and want to see it successful, like how it was before the tech censorship began. youtube was the shit 5+ years ago, there should have been a viable alternative by now but any attempt is thwarted by some other corporation further up the food chain, as detailed by partyof5