YouTube Statement on Fighting Online Terror Content

I surely hope this is sarcasm......1st Amendment is not only bound to government.....I can tell you to F off and you can't sue me becuase I told you to F- Off. That't the first amendment at it purest state.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment
Read the second paragraph and tell me where Anyone can say anything against someone and not be held accountable? Slander, Libel, all protections under the first amendment......thats where the question of what is the 1st amendment line falls. period.
According to the law its NOT the ONLY thing that it protects......Private people/ entities still have to fall under the same laws.....other wise there is not protection against each other....

wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong

the 1st amendment prevents the government from limiting your speech that is all. You can not be arrested for your political opinion. You can't be forced to not print a story that is negative about the president. Private business can do what they want. If the admins here want to lock a thread they can. If they want to ban somebody for attacking somebody else they can. just because you don't understand the law doesn't change what it means.
 
forgive me if I don't feel pity for people who are afraid of their favorite hate speech youtubers making less money because advertisers don't want to be associated with them. be still our beating hearts.
 
forgive me if I don't feel pity for people who are afraid of their favorite hate speech youtubers making less money because advertisers don't want to be associated with them. be still our beating hearts.

And exactly how do you define hate speech? Because that is the central issue here. The modern "liberal" definition of hate speech pretty much includes everything that opposes their opinion. That is what people are worried about.
 
It's time to start boycotting Youtube if 'hate speech' i.e. telling the truth about real world problems is censored.


I don't go to youtube to "get the truth" about real world problems because I have no reason to believe that these truth-bringers aren't shoveling a load of shit my way. Of course I see the same shit shoveling coming from main stream media so what's a soul to do?
 
You can *tell* him to leave. You can't force him or that becomes assault, etc. Besides, you don't actually own your home/land. You can be on it and use it as long as you pay taxes to the government and they don't need it for their own purposes.

You can force him, it's called 911.

And if you actually own your home free and clear, then you do own your home in every way. Yes you pay taxes on your home, but paying taxes doesn't mean you don't own your home. And eminent domain doesn't mean they don't have to pay you for your home if they decide they need it. And no, they don't pay you fair market value for it. My own family got screwed that way years ago. But your arguments don't mean that you don't really own your home, they only point out that we all have responsibilities to the whole as citizens in this country.
 
You can force him, it's called 911.

And if you actually own your home free and clear, then you do own your home in every way. Yes you pay taxes on your home, but paying taxes doesn't mean you don't own your home. And eminent domain doesn't mean they don't have to pay you for your home if they decide they need it. And no, they don't pay you fair market value for it. My own family got screwed that way years ago. But your arguments don't mean that you don't really own your home, they only point out that we all have responsibilities to the whole as citizens in this country.

So now that the analogy has proven completely inadequate for the topic at hand...my point is that:

Youtube is free to do as it wishes, to a point. They can erect as much censorship as their customers and the government are willing to accept. On the other foot, they are free to reject or comply with demands to erect or dismantle censorship...to a point.
 
any suggestions for an alternative neutral vid hosting website?
im pretty sure there are companies/interest groups/lobbies, just like copyright trolls, that are sending multitudes of emails to youtube / twitter (confirmed, especially the taking down of extreme-sjw opponents. The SJWs have a very powerful lobby) / Pateron / Facebook, to take down dissenting speech.

dissenting speech which they will label as extremist views. If that fail, they just reconstruct it as a conspiracy theory, or foreign propaganda or false news or sexism or racism or fascism (ironic) or ant-semitism regardless of it's legitimacy.
 
There is no such thing as hate speech. There is only free speech or tyranny.

A simple question that shows massive flaws in their conclusions and claims...

How do they know they have removed "75% of the offending content" ?

That is impossible to know. Especially when they say no human has even flagged it first to indicate it as what they claim.
 
Last edited:
Overall I'm very wary in any site - especially a major site like YouTube that ostensibly is entirely about and monetized based on user content - going down this slope. Yes yes its not"censorship/1st amendment issue" because this isn't a government policy, but that's why its so pernicious - people in this country put up with corporations doing horrid things they'd lose their shit if governments did. I get its Google/Alphabet's channel and all and they can run it as they see fit, but I do think that when you become so big (much less on the backs of user generated content) you should have extra responsibility. Adding new kinds of banned content based on nuanced ideas, as opposed to easy blanket conditions from the start (ie not permitting porn, torture, violent crime being committed or documented for non-journalistic reasons etc) is problematic and this sort of "shadowbanning" of sorts means Google can claim "its not being taken down!" but it isn't given equal standing to any other video, either.

"Violent Extremism" is only slightly less malleable a definition as "Hate Speech". Oh and I know its almost predictable now to see this response here, but lets not pretend that this is something linked exclusively to left wing or right wing ideology - there are subgroups that fall into both that would seek to use these labels to remove or limit the reach of certain content for what I consider unacceptable reasons.
 
You are so naive. Our government or any government can and will have you killed if they deem it beneficiary. Companies as big as Google and Facebook can and will use their position to push their agenda. Having such pockets as deep as them allows them to skirt the law as they seem fit.

And you clearly have reading comprehension issues but lets try not to resort to personal attacks ok?

The point wasnt if google or any other company could or would push their agenda. Who gives a shit about that? The point is they are bound by laws as to what they can do to you personally and arent as powerful as governments when it comes to stifling free speech. You dont like their agenda? Fine dont use their services and go somewhere else. Thats not a joke. VOTE WITH YOUR WALLET. Stop bitching about how companies skirt the law and stop giving them your money. WIthout your money they dry up and go away.

Conspiracy theories aside, which I refuse to argue about because they are just f'in stupid (anyone who thinks a conspiracy is true doesnt get just how stupid congress and the rest of the govt is...), in order to kill you our government has to go through a legal process. Where you can defend yourself.
 
Good for YouTube!
Hate Speech is an internationally recognized standard.
Its only purpose is to incite violence, get people killed and destroy families.
Hate Speech and Behavior are common bullying tactics. Alternative facts are their calling card.
 
wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong

the 1st amendment prevents the government from limiting your speech that is all. You can not be arrested for your political opinion. You can't be forced to not print a story that is negative about the president. Private business can do what they want. If the admins here want to lock a thread they can. If they want to ban somebody for attacking somebody else they can. just because you don't understand the law doesn't change what it means.
So your telling me that i can go around lieing about people and say its free speech and never be sued for it? WTF are you talking about? Slander and Libel are part of this law which means there is a line and its drawn people sue other people all the time. Ever heard of Gawker? Yea they got sued and fucking lost. That's a private company that lost because Hulk Hogan fought it based of freedom of the press limitations.......https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/03/business/media/gawker-hulk-hogan-settlement.html
Tell Me that is wasn't, and its limited to JUST THE GOVERNMENT......like it or not you are wrong.
 
So your telling me that i can go around lieing about people and say its free speech and never be sued for it? WTF are you talking about? Slander and Libel are part of this law which means there is a line and its drawn people sue other people all the time. Ever heard of Gawker? Yea they got sued and fucking lost. That's a private company that lost because Hulk Hogan fought it based of freedom of the press limitations.......https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/03/business/media/gawker-hulk-hogan-settlement.html
Tell Me that is wasn't, and its limited to JUST THE GOVERNMENT......like it or not you are wrong.

That is not what he said at all. Free speech has nothing to do with telling the truth or lies. The first amendment does not protect you from the consequences of exercising your rights. It simply prohibits the government from making laws restricting them. Here is the text:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[
 
Yeah but if you were in my house telling me to fuck off i would tell you to leave and dont come back, because its my house and i own it and if you dont like it then tough shit. Same analogy with google/youtube not wanting certain types of videos on their site.
Telling someone to leave their property doesn't fall under first amendment. You can't blur the lines like that. The problem becomes the censorship issue.....if i sign up and they don't like it fine they can shut it down but they can also be sued by the individual for wrongful dismissal. This is where I question the line that is drawn......not that the company can do what it wants.........that's where the corporate world comes into play, they have money so they can fight what they want. Doesn't mean they are not violating laws....i don't give a crap what people im just question where they will say ok whats the line and how is it determined. what they consider "free speech" they can be sued under that law......people do it all the time. There are plenty of cases where this is happened just look it up.......2 big ones in the last few years.... Gawker vs Hogan, and James vs Kyle both very high profile 1st amendment cases......
 
That is not what he said at all. Free speech has nothing to do with telling the truth or lies. The first amendment does not protect you from the consequences of exercising your rights. It simply prohibits the government from making laws restricting them. Here is the text:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[
He said a private company does not fall under that law.......and i called BS. plain and simple. Its not limited to JUST the government. Private people / companies fall under the law and are subject to the same law. not sure where the confusion is.
 
He said a private company does not fall under that law.......and i called BS. plain and simple. Its not limited to JUST the government. Private people / companies fall under the law and are subject to the same law. not sure where the confusion is.

Because you seem to think that the first amendment somehow limits companies. It does not. See the text.
 
Telling someone to leave their property doesn't fall under first amendment. You can't blur the lines like that. The problem becomes the censorship issue.....if i sign up and they don't like it fine they can shut it down but they can also be sued by the individual for wrongful dismissal. This is where I question the line that is drawn......not that the company can do what it wants.........that's where the corporate world comes into play, they have money so they can fight what they want. Doesn't mean they are not violating laws....i don't give a crap what people im just question where they will say ok whats the line and how is it determined. what they consider "free speech" they can be sued under that law......people do it all the time. There are plenty of cases where this is happened just look it up.......2 big ones in the last few years.... Gawker vs Hogan, and James vs Kyle both very high profile 1st amendment cases......

One, using "...." to connect strings of text does not make coherent sentences.

Two, there's a distinct legal line between free speech and slander or libel. Free speech is legal and cannot be abridged by LAW. That means you can't be arrested for it. That doesn't mean every company has an obligation to SUPPORT your speech. You don't have a right to post your "free speech" on my webpage. I own the page, I can control the content following whatever rules I want. Now you can legally go start your OWN webpage and post your own content. That's free speech.

A company can censor whatever they like.
 
Telling someone to leave their property doesn't fall under first amendment. You can't blur the lines like that. The problem becomes the censorship issue.....if i sign up and they don't like it fine they can shut it down but they can also be sued by the individual for wrongful dismissal. This is where I question the line that is drawn......not that the company can do what it wants.........that's where the corporate world comes into play, they have money so they can fight what they want. Doesn't mean they are not violating laws....i don't give a crap what people im just question where they will say ok whats the line and how is it determined. what they consider "free speech" they can be sued under that law......people do it all the time. There are plenty of cases where this is happened just look it up.......2 big ones in the last few years.... Gawker vs Hogan, and James vs Kyle both very high profile 1st amendment cases......
in the gawker vs hogan trial they were sued because the did not want to take down hogans sex video even after being asked to by his lawyers. a little different than a video hosting website not wanting certain content on their own site. Again, Google/Youtube doesnt owe anybody anything. Its their own site and they can do whatever they want to do with it and if you dont like the policies then there are a ton of other video sharing sites you can use. Just because Youtube is the most popular and prominent one doesnt mean they have to allow whatever its users want to upload. Its censorship sure, but its not infringing on freedom of speech.
 
in the gawker vs hogan trial they were sued because the did not want to take down hogans sex video even after being asked to by his lawyers. a little different than a video hosting website not wanting certain content on their own site. Again, Google/Youtube doesnt owe anybody anything. Its their own site and they can do whatever they want to do with it and if you dont like the policies then there are a ton of other video sharing sites you can use. Just because Youtube is the most popular and prominent one doesnt mean they have to allow whatever its users want to upload. Its censorship sure, but its not infringing on freedom of speech.
But censorship is still a form of limitation on free speech. Just because its not "illegal" doesn't mean its not limiting. That's all my point ever was from the very beginning, censorship. Then every one had to blow up about how it only applies to the government.
 
But censorship is still a form of limitation on free speech. Just because its not "illegal" doesn't mean its not limiting. That's all my point ever was from the very beginning, censorship. Then every one had to blow up about how it only applies to the government.
Again, i dont see whats wrong with censorship. YouTube is not some free for all video sharing site. They have specific things that they do not want on there. If i want to see porn videos i goto pornhub, if i want to see uncensored political videos or very gory videos, i goto liveleak, and if i want to see a DIY or a music video or game review i goto Youtube. The users of Youtube are not owed anything, they are merely using a service that Google provides.
 
Again, i dont see whats wrong with censorship. YouTube is not some free for all video sharing site. They have specific things that they do not want on there. If i want to see porn videos i goto pornhub, if i want to see uncensored political videos or very gory videos, i goto liveleak, and if i want to see a DIY or a music video or game review i goto Youtube. The users of Youtube are not owed anything, they are merely using a service that Google provides.
Once it starts to grow, then what can you believe is true or not, censorship is a way from someone to rail road you into one way of thinking. Thats why it scares me. I agree with you its a service that you have to abide by but these "updated" policies are starting to grow and spread.
 
Once it starts to grow, then what can you believe is true or not, censorship is a way from someone to rail road you into one way of thinking. Thats why it scares me. I agree with you its a service that you have to abide by but these "updated" policies are starting to grow and spread.

Literally every single type of medium has had this issue. Hell they probably even had this with stone tablets - HEY YOU CANT PUT THAT LINE ON THERE It looks like my wife!!!

I am not concerned with companies censoring things because they do not have the ability to limit me outside of their platform. If they limit their platform ultimately they are hurting themselves and it will open the way for a new platform/medium to fill the gap.

Governments we should always be concerned with doing bad things. Governments are much harder to change - even one like ours which has self corrections and protections built into the system.
 
Literally every single type of medium has had this issue. Hell they probably even had this with stone tablets - HEY YOU CANT PUT THAT LINE ON THERE It looks like my wife!!!

I am not concerned with companies censoring things because they do not have the ability to limit me outside of their platform. If they limit their platform ultimately they are hurting themselves and it will open the way for a new platform/medium to fill the gap.

Governments we should always be concerned with doing bad things. Governments are much harder to change - even one like ours which has self corrections and protections built into the system.
Our government has a big problem with corporate handouts, they like to make policies based on how much money was "donated" to their own cause. Google is a big company, one reason why I barely trust any source of media as well because they all are owned by another bigger company somewhere down the line.
 
Sure...and "FreeTube" needs money to operate. So they have to sell ads. And those advertisers say, "hey we don't like this particular type of video, delete it or we'll cut our advertising to you". Now FreeTube is "censoring" their videos to please their advertisers or else they won't exist.

Of course, this is exactly how YouTube started and ended. Now they have so many ads that it makes you not really want to listen to music on it or pay for Red which gets rid of ads but you still have the same random crappy quality content but paid service. I honestly don't know anyone paying for Red. Regarding censorship everyone does it to some extent and if there's none, government steps in to fix. This is obviously not this extreme but kind of reminds me of Ogrish.com and how government shut it down for being too uncensored. Anyhow, YouTube was decent before but aggressive content provides and such upset the balance and this is perhaps what we're seeing now.
 
Of course, this is exactly how YouTube started and ended. Now they have so many ads that it makes you not really want to listen to music on it or pay for Red which gets rid of ads but you still have the same random crappy quality content but paid service. I honestly don't know anyone paying for Red. Regarding censorship everyone does it to some extent and if there's none, government steps in to fix. This is obviously not this extreme but kind of reminds me of Ogrish.com and how government shut it down for being too uncensored. Anyhow, YouTube was decent before but aggressive content provides and such upset the balance and this is perhaps what we're seeing now.
use ublock origin. No ads ever.
 
And exactly how do you define hate speech? Because that is the central issue here. The modern "liberal" definition of hate speech pretty much includes everything that opposes their opinion. That is what people are worried about.

Did you guys know that there are porn sites that don't allow simulated rape or child sex videos? Not real rape or child sex. Just pretend. Like, legal age girls pretending to be under age are against the policy there. And there are people who complain about this because it shatters their world view that there should be no limits on anything. And guess what? Me and the rest of the world don't care. Life goes on.

Hate speech has a definition. There are places in the world where it is against the law. Youtube is not stopping you from going somewhere it's allowed (like the united states) and starting a new service to brainwash people into whatever cult you believe in. Go for it. I don't care about you, and neither does Youtube. We have rights too.
 
Of course, this is exactly how YouTube started and ended. Now they have so many ads that it makes you not really want to listen to music on it or pay for Red which gets rid of ads but you still have the same random crappy quality content but paid service. I honestly don't know anyone paying for Red. Regarding censorship everyone does it to some extent and if there's none, government steps in to fix. This is obviously not this extreme but kind of reminds me of Ogrish.com and how government shut it down for being too uncensored. Anyhow, YouTube was decent before but aggressive content provides and such upset the balance and this is perhaps what we're seeing now.

Well, it costs money to operate a site that large. They either charge for it with Red, or they have to bow to the demands of their advertisers. You can't operate servers and pay for that ungodly amount of bandwidth with good intentions.
 
So now that the analogy has proven completely inadequate for the topic at hand...my point is that:

Youtube is free to do as it wishes, to a point. They can erect as much censorship as their customers and the government are willing to accept. On the other foot, they are free to reject or comply with demands to erect or dismantle censorship...to a point.


I'd agree with that.
 
Did you guys know that there are porn sites that don't allow simulated rape or child sex videos? Not real rape or child sex. Just pretend. Like, legal age girls pretending to be under age are against the policy there. And there are people who complain about this because it shatters their world view that there should be no limits on anything. And guess what? Me and the rest of the world don't care. Life goes on.

Hate speech has a definition. There are places in the world where it is against the law. Youtube is not stopping you from going somewhere it's allowed (like the united states) and starting a new service to brainwash people into whatever cult you believe in. Go for it. I don't care about you, and neither does Youtube. We have rights too.

You used a lot of words to say nothing and not actually address my point.
 
He said a private company does not fall under that law.......and i called BS. plain and simple. Its not limited to JUST the government. Private people / companies fall under the law and are subject to the same law. not sure where the confusion is.

Ok, since there seems to be people that just don't understand what the bill of rights actually are.

First amendment to the constitution as hand wrote. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

In other words the federal government can not make it against the law for you to practice whatever religion you want nor can they force you to practice a set religion, they can not make a law that prevents you from gathering to discuss your dislike of how the government is doing something (peaceful protest for example), they can not limit what the news papers / media outlets post as far as stories, nor can they prevent you from making a complaint to the government and being punished for it.

Now there are exceptions to this law such as while you have the right to practice a religion, you can't make up a religion where kill people as that violates another person's right to life. You can't yell fire in a crowded building. You can't lie under oath. You can't spread lies....

However none of that is at the core of this discussion. Most people, yourself included, keep trying to say that based on the first amendment it is illegal for a site like HardOCP or any other site to limit what you can say or do on their sites. You think that the first amendment states that nobody is able to limit your ability to say what you wan, when you want. However that isn't what it states at all, it only states that the government can not create laws that limit your ability to certain freedoms, it states nothing about private business from being able to limit what you say or do on their platforms or using their services. YouTube can say that you can't use their service do to X. If they don't want you posting porn and say they will remove porn they can remove porn. If Kyle doesn't want you to do or say something on here, and you do it anyway, he can ban your account if he wants. That isn't breaking the law, you aren't going to jail, you aren't being fined, you are simply no longer able to use a service / product due to not following the rules that the owner of said platform put in place and wants people to follow. If YouTube doesn't want to have certain types of content on their site they can do that, they are not making laws, there is no federal bill being passed, it is only them stating these are changes to our rules.
 
Did you guys know that there are porn sites that don't allow simulated rape or child sex videos? Not real rape or child sex. Just pretend. Like, legal age girls pretending to be under age are against the policy there. And there are people who complain about this because it shatters their world view that there should be no limits on anything. And guess what? Me and the rest of the world don't care. Life goes on.

Hate speech has a definition. There are places in the world where it is against the law. Youtube is not stopping you from going somewhere it's allowed (like the united states) and starting a new service to brainwash people into whatever cult you believe in. Go for it. I don't care about you, and neither does Youtube. We have rights too.

He did have a question there that is slightly being overlooked by your reply. What is the definition of Hate speech, who made it up? Hate speech in the USA might be different than hate speech in the Republic of Cameroon, which both might be different than Russia. It has a definition but a very fluid one.

Think of it like pornography there was the obscenity test of sorts back in the 60s that resulted in the quote "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." Hard core porn has a definition, but it is one that isn't always concrete. One person's hard core could be another person's pushing the limit of soft core. Or one could view something as art and other person see it as porn. Is a naked person always porn?

The same can be said for hate speech. Hate speech is defined as "speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation". I could twist stuff pretty hard to make it into hate speech. Your statement quoted here in my opinion is hate speech as it is attacking his views and anyone that questions stuff the same as him. Therefore, I think that it is only right that Kyle or another admin deletes your post as you are attacking him and anyone that questions what hate speech is in an attempt to make them mad and trying to pull a argument out of his statement. Do you agree with my statement or am I pushing maybe just a tad to hard with my way of viewing the situation?
 
Ok, since there seems to be people that just don't understand what the bill of rights actually are.

First amendment to the constitution as hand wrote. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

In other words the federal government can not make it against the law for you to practice whatever religion you want nor can they force you to practice a set religion, they can not make a law that prevents you from gathering to discuss your dislike of how the government is doing something (peaceful protest for example), they can not limit what the news papers / media outlets post as far as stories, nor can they prevent you from making a complaint to the government and being punished for it.

Now there are exceptions to this law such as while you have the right to practice a religion, you can't make up a religion where kill people as that violates another person's right to life. You can't yell fire in a crowded building. You can't lie under oath. You can't spread lies....

However none of that is at the core of this discussion. Most people, yourself included, keep trying to say that based on the first amendment it is illegal for a site like HardOCP or any other site to limit what you can say or do on their sites. You think that the first amendment states that nobody is able to limit your ability to say what you wan, when you want. However that isn't what it states at all, it only states that the government can not create laws that limit your ability to certain freedoms, it states nothing about private business from being able to limit what you say or do on their platforms or using their services. YouTube can say that you can't use their service do to X. If they don't want you posting porn and say they will remove porn they can remove porn. If Kyle doesn't want you to do or say something on here, and you do it anyway, he can ban your account if he wants. That isn't breaking the law, you aren't going to jail, you aren't being fined, you are simply no longer able to use a service / product due to not following the rules that the owner of said platform put in place and wants people to follow. If YouTube doesn't want to have certain types of content on their site they can do that, they are not making laws, there is no federal bill being passed, it is only them stating these are changes to our rules.

Ok dude, obviously you are completely reading into what was NOT SAID at all. You assume what i'm thinking and not what i'm saying. I said censorship and inferred into when it becomes a First amendment issue. I never said anything about a web site can't do what it wants (take down shit they want.) The only thing I jumped on is that you specifically said that a site can post whatever they want under this law and it does/doesn't protect them from posting what they want on their site. There are law suits that directly disagree with that the fact the private companies can be sued for that right and I gave examples but you still harp of something I NEVER SAID. Check my previous posts and tell me where I said Youtube didn't have the right to pull content. I simply asked WHEN does it became an infringement? I wasn't arguing that "THEY HAVE TO LET PEOPLE POST WHAT THEY WANT!!!" A question, not a statement. But thanks for trying to "educate" me on this topic.

I fully understand the first amendment, and still fully understand that people can say crap but only to a certain point before you CAN be sued for "freedom of speech" when its blatantly false and falls under slander and libel. You clearly misunderstood the intent of my original post......
 
well say goodbye to any "conservative" or NON progressive content on Youtube. What a ball of crap!
They will get rid of a lot of the mickey moust progressive content too. But that leaves us with only Big Media who is firmly in the progressive camp. If there are 7 battlegrounds and you own 6 and losing on the 7th, don't try to win there, just burn it down.
 
Free speech isn't just a legal precept. It may be the only one that can be the basis of action. But it is a virtue if someone fails to uphold it its faire game to publicly criticize them for it. OTOH, I think most of the people who like to say this is private business I'm pretty sure most of you had nothing to say about the 200 advertisers who colluded to pressure Youtube to filter their content.

Personally I thought that the advertiser thing was staged (or an moment of opportunity) to allow Google to make changes and blame a large group who by consequences of being large will not get any real flak. Because Google being a de facto monopoly in terms of advertiser access to internet should be in the driver's seat. And what the advertisers did was encroaching on possible illegal boycotting and yet Google folded like a wet napkin.

Anyway, the fact that Google is a monopoly (to advertisers) they do lose some of the right to free operation of their business.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top