51–60 of 340 posts
Oh that's right... The first amendment only applies to printed materials and live spoken word. The founding fathers couldn't have foreseen social media, and certainly would have worded the amendment differently if they saw how powerful Twitter was.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clearly YouTube doesn’t want to be a public square.
In that case, they should forgo their section 230 protections and stand boldly as the *publisher* they want to be.
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"?
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"?
Look at Minecraft. Some people end up building absolutely incredible things in it. Detailed art. Imagine if they had used a 3D modeling program instead! But those are way harder to use and way less inviting. So, Minecraft it is.
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"?
I don't understand this argument at all. The entire Fourth Estate in the US has always been primarily paid for by advertisers, and just saying YouTube is an "entertainment website" seems like a poor attempt to say it can only be used for cat videos or something.
YouTube is the largest video distribution network on the planet. Of course I think someone would use it to chronicle video history.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clearly YouTube doesn’t want to be a public square.
In that case, they should forgo their section 230 protections and stand boldly as the *publisher* they want to be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am in no way defending google. Fuck google. I don’t use google to the greatest extent of my abilities. I’m defending a private entities right to free speech. I’m a white knight for the constitution and if you’re American, you should be too. Public opinion should change and we should have alternatives; but as long as google and amazon hold monopolies on internet infrastructure option C can’t happen. We shouldn’t be…
yes. I want as little govt intervention as possible. But nobody is calling for govt intervention here. we want public sentiments to continue to fester so we can be rid of google the natural way—competition. Your calls for defending company speech seem out of place. The article clearly talks about building alternatives. We are simply complaining about google and your sarcastic suggestions were for violating their righ…
Also; only one of my suggestions was sarcastic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/world/new-zealand-mosque-s... Maybe they don't want livestreams like this?
That's part of life in a post-Enlightenment world.
You don't get to have the all the great shit without all the worst shit along with it.
The very nature of freedom means at some point, someone is going to do something you don't like. And I don't mean the mosque shooting. That was illegal. I mean part of having a free society means you have put up with people saying crazy nonsensical bullshit that any reasonable person would laugh at and then click on a new video. And you're going to have some group of people who are just dumb, or are easily impressionable, or are easily persuaded, or are whatever.
Maybe the sickness isn't in the platform, either... maybe the sickness is somewhere else... and nobody wants to bother with it because its actually hard, and will actually cost money to deal with it.
And to that, I also say, "Too goddamn bad." Its not a buffet and you don't get to choose, you have to accept the whole dinner, the hákarl along with the strawberry cheesecake.
What did you expect? Several years ago Google openly declared that they are turning evil :)
The "And remember… don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!"[1] line is still in Google's Code of Conduct. All they did is remove a line from near the start; it's always been there at the end as well. [1] https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/