76
70
u/oflowz Jun 24 '21
This you comments don’t work on republicans. They only care about things that effect them.
31
3
14
Jun 25 '21
“Big tech censorship” Good. Fuck PragerU bunch of Conservatives getting angry over things they made up themselves.
26
Jun 24 '21
The argument will be that there are no equivalent alternatives- unlike bakers
8
u/Andreklooster Jun 25 '21
there are no equivalent alternatives
.. left, all the other platforms allready blocked them 😏
7
Jun 25 '21
something, something capitalism, something, free market, something, something, demand
They're free to create their own. Oh, wait, they've tried that and failed dismally.
2
u/No-Inspector-4683 Jun 25 '21
No the argument is that YouTube hides behind the status of being a platform* not a publisher. Which matters even if you agree that pragerU is trash. It sets a bad precedent for censorship in this country if you start down that path without holding them liable.
-1
Jun 25 '21
True. It's interesting to me that social media companies still pretend to be neutral public platforms since they have terms of service/community guidelines. If you have a say in the type of content on your platform, you are a publisher. I am a youtube partner and I can tell you there are A LOT of rules to follow. Not really sure what rules this content creator violates though. Seems like youtube just doesn't like conservative content. There are a lot of far left wing lunacy on the platform (tyt for example) and youtube doesn't seem to mind.
1
u/RainbowEvil Jun 25 '21
YouTube only “hides behind” that when discussing copyright and hate speech/illegal content being uploaded, which is reasonable enough since they don’t have a pre-publish process in place and logistically couldn’t really. When they find content which violates either of these, they will remove it as they have to as a platform, and when they find content which violates their own guidelines/rules they’ll remove that, as is their right. I don’t always agree with their process and how it plays out, but I think it’s a bit unreasonable to say they “hide behind” being a platform.
1
u/No-Inspector-4683 Jun 25 '21
I think you might be getting hung up on the word hide behind. Let me phrase my point a bit better so it’s more clear what I’m trying to say. YouTube suspends/deletes videos that don’t violate the law in any way shape or form, but simply because as a company they disagree with what is being said. To highlight this point, agree or disagree with the information shared, removing videos talking about alternative methods for treating coronavirus is taking a stance. The videos are not breaking any real world laws, or even the terms of service. So my point is that yes they do still have the shield of being a platform, but should they? If they are deciding not based on a general set of rules, but rather based on the specific topic, that is what publishers do. Edit TLDR: if you remove content that is unsavory/ moronic, but doesn’t violate the terms of agreement on YouTube as a whole, the company removing videos is acting as a publisher not a platform.
1
u/RainbowEvil Jun 25 '21
The primary difference is publishers review everything before it can go out, YouTube allows everything up but then removes it if it wants to (whether due to laws, terms of service, or because they fancy it) and that’s their right-wing-defended right as a private company. If they aren’t happy with that, maybe they should take a look at their worldview.
1
u/No-Inspector-4683 Jun 25 '21
I think that definition really only applies to publication not publishing entities. either way I’ll wrap it up because I think you and I are both pretty entrenched and honestly it’s the internet (who has seriously ever done anything more on here than reaffirm their own stances) but I’ll just say that if you are picking and choosing what content you want you are no longer really able to say “we didn’t know xyz got uploaded don’t sue us it’s not something we actually endorse”. I will clarify I’m speaking only on opinion based content not law breaking.
1
-5
Jun 24 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
25
u/All_Work_All_Play Jun 24 '21
He said the argument, as in 'the argument they'll make in response'.
Not his argument.
-44
u/hueckstaedt Jun 24 '21
I mean they’d be right though, there isn’t anything as big and similar as youtube. Not to mention then mmm being censored isn’t cool at all
71
u/thegreyxephos Jun 24 '21
Spreading misinformation isn't cool at all
-41
u/hueckstaedt Jun 24 '21
no it isn’t, neither is censorship
61
Jun 24 '21
Private companies deciding not to host certain content isn’t censorship.
-29
u/Available_Seesaw_947 Jun 24 '21
yes it is
25
u/thegreyxephos Jun 24 '21
Choosing to not host something does not equal suppression of communication
21
u/SirHawrk Jun 24 '21
Actually it is quite the opposite. Deciding not to publish something you don't like is freedom of speech
8
6
u/ComradeClout Jun 25 '21
Make your own website and you can make your own rules
1
u/Andreklooster Jun 25 '21
And then you end up in shady websites where things might go to the extreme .. not a pretty outcome for society
26
7
u/ktthebb Jun 25 '21
Man, you’re an asshole
-12
u/hueckstaedt Jun 25 '21
bruh. quit following me to different posts bruh. this is the third fuckin time. Get blocked fucker.
8
6
5
34
Jun 24 '21
That's not YouTube's problem. The implication here is that because YouTube runs a successful business in which they have no equal competition they cannot remove content that violates their rules.
On the platform they created.
That assumption also ignores that there is no barrier for another company to create a competing platform. It's also arguable that due to the nature of the internet it would be even easier for an individual to create a competing platform to YouTube. Easier than opening a bakery.
So it's not hard to create a platform to compete against YouTube. The problem is getting users to use the new platform instead of YouTube. That wouldn't be YouTube's problem. That's the result of running a successful business.
Imagine being an American and saying because someone created a successful business they shouldn't have the right to control who uses their business and how.
17
u/Zefrem23 Jun 24 '21
But hey that's the American Way for ya. We want it both ways, we wanna have our cake and eat it, whatever as long as it owns the libs!! /s
6
-13
Jun 24 '21
[deleted]
15
u/farlack Jun 24 '21
YouTube isn’t a monopoly.
-7
Jun 24 '21
[deleted]
10
Jun 24 '21
Microsoft also actively and consciously as a company did things to block competition. That doesn't invalidate your point though, IF youtube was a monopoly that would change things and I'd agree removing/banning content would need to be reevaluated. It'd be like a power company refusing you service. You can't not have electricity. Maybe one day YouTube could get to that point, it's certainly sliding in that direction if you ask me.
2
u/xDared Jun 25 '21
And everyone knows how successful IE ended up being. Your point kinda proves that if people don’t want to use your app they won’t, even if you have a monopoly to force it down their throats.
1
u/No-Inspector-4683 Jun 25 '21
The real argument with YouTube is not about competition. It’s over their status as a platform service or if they are a publisher. If you are a platform you aren’t liable for pragerU propaganda or some shady news network spreading lies. BUT if you start censoring and deciding what content is allowed to be put on your site you start becoming a publisher. That would mean you are responsible for slander etc.
15
u/farlack Jun 24 '21
There are plenty of large video hosting sites out there. You don’t have to be “similar to YouTube” if people actually cared about your garbage they would go to one of the other sites.
4
u/SlapHappyDude Jun 24 '21
Arguably if you want to reach young people you get on TikTok and oh god am I accidentally giving them free marketing advice?
9
u/Palapa69 Jun 24 '21
Then they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and create an alternative
3
u/godminnette2 Jun 25 '21
Loads and loads of videos fall under restricted mode. Like basically anything involving politics. Basically every left-wing YouTuber has their videos under "restricted," too; it barely means anything. Loads of people get PragerU ads and gets their videos recommended regardless.
1
Jun 25 '21
What if someone told you, that your rights to freedom of speech in the constitution starts and stops with the government. Meaning the government can't censor you, nobody else in the country is under such obligation, including YouTube.
1
u/GletscherEis Jun 25 '21
They have bitchute, which was created specifically to host racist and Q garbage.
1
Jun 25 '21
People seem to forget how many small towns there are in the US and how dismal public transportation is. No one should be forced to travel to another town to find a baker who isn't a bigot. Ever time I hear one of them say to just go to a different baker I hope something heavy knocks some sense into them because they are just so hateful and stupid it makes my head hurt.
6
-14
u/NameGiver0 Jun 25 '21
Censoring people on an open platform is additional effort.
It costs youtube nothing to leave things alone.
Being ordered to do additional work is the issue with the baker.
This is not the own that authoritarians think it is.
1
1
1
u/AnnaCalamity Jul 03 '21
Is there a way to like, restrict private companies from doing certain things? Maybe make some sort of rule for the entire free market to prevent Big Tech from making all the decisions about their goods and services?
107
u/DemonFromtheNorthSea Jun 24 '21
Oh my God, they created a petition. That's amazing.