21–30 of 340 posts
To Jordan Chariton exclaiming in all caps: > How are journalists supposed to chronicle history if YouTube — and others — are outlawing it? Regardless of what YouTube says, they are an advertiser-friendly entertainment website. Why in God's name would you use it to "chronicle history"?
> Why in God's name would you use it to "chronicle history"? Because for better or for worse these platforms have become the public square. They are where modern life happens.
Yet another example of Google trying to solve all problems algorithmically. It's not useful to say "if firearm then block content."
I had to squint to read the email, but I think it’s specific to live streams. I’m going to guess that the original intention was to block suicide / snuff live streams. Though that’s pure speculation on my part.
To Jordan Chariton exclaiming in all caps: > How are journalists supposed to chronicle history if YouTube — and others — are outlawing it? Regardless of what YouTube says, they are an advertiser-friendly entertainment website. Why in God's name would you use it to "chronicle history"?
This is a good thing. It was only a matter of time before the perceived total unlimited sense of freedom of speech that pervaded the internet turned toxic. There's an expression "free as in speech or free as in beer," but in reality both of those things cost money.
"Free as in pony" is my favorite phrase to convey cost of otherwise "free" things
Yet another example of Google trying to solve all problems algorithmically. It's not useful to say "if firearm then block content."
I had to squint to read the email, but I think it’s specific to live streams. I’m going to guess that the original intention was to block suicide / snuff live streams. Though that’s pure speculation on my part.
Maybe they don't want livestreams like this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I for one, welcome our corporate overlords deciding what ideas are good for us and what ideas are bad for us. Thinking is difficult!
In a free market you can choose who your corporate “overlords” are. So; which are you for? Should the government prevent monopolies from having free speech? Because telling google or whoever what or what not they allow in their private platforms is anti free speech. 0r should the government simply prevent monopolies so you have the choice to go somewhere else to consume whatever frothing angry garbage you wish to con…
We've seen what several decades of totally unregulated broadcasting have done, to the detriment of our society - without well-funded expert guidance, conspiracy theories and extremism run rampant. Platforms must be restricted to those who prove they can use them appropriately.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I for one, welcome our corporate overlords deciding what ideas are good for us and what ideas are bad for us. Thinking is difficult!
In a free market you can choose who your corporate “overlords” are. So; which are you for? Should the government prevent monopolies from having free speech? Because telling google or whoever what or what not they allow in their private platforms is anti free speech. 0r should the government simply prevent monopolies so you have the choice to go somewhere else to consume whatever frothing angry garbage you wish to con…
The best part is that everybody starts quoting the first amendment, and Google is like, "Look, we hear you. Just tell us where our intractable flushing procedure fucked up, and we will promise to never again accidentally flush that vendor into the sewer."