31–40 of 471 posts
Good. I'd rather live in chaos than a world controlled by these technocrats. Let's do Twitter while we're at it.
Centralized : Dailymotion, Bitchute, Rumble, DTube, Vimeo, Vidlii
Decentralized : Odysee(LBRY), Peertube
Earlier quoted context omitted.
State violence is being used to force a private company to host content it finds objectionable. Who's the technocrat here?
I wonder if you would agree to the following equivalent: > State violence is being used to force a christian bakery to bake (gay/muslim/etc) cakes it finds objectionable. Who's the villain here? The more you open service to the public, the more control over your output you lose because then it becomes a matter of discrimination.
> The German court held that YouTube failed to make its enforcement authority clear in its contract with the account operator who posted the video. Does YouTube's TOS really not contain statements giving them the ability to stop hosting any video, at any time, for any reason? Edit: I guess not: the only content removal clause I see is this one, which is definitely not "we can remove your video for any reason, as long…
They probably do. Powerful enough governments can just choose to ignore or re-interpret things any way they like and act on them, though.
The clause in the sentence before that part reads "Beneath the rule of men entirely great,..." It was referring to authoritarian government.
Good. I'd rather live in chaos than a world controlled by these technocrats. Let's do Twitter while we're at it.
State violence is being used to force a private company to host content it finds objectionable. Who's the technocrat here?
Same way that when you open a store you can't pick and choose your customers.
Platforms should just obey law and at most create a process where users and lawmakers can express and enforce their opinion on content.
What's the law they ran afoul of here? I'm getting the impression from the Google Translate'd version of this[1] article, that they violated a contract with the company? [1]: https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article232421961/OLG...
> “With the historically high fine, the Higher Regional Court makes it very clear that court decisions must be observed without restriction, regardless of whether YouTube assumes a violation of its guidelines or not,”
Naval Ravikant seems to be a divisive figure here but I think he made a profound point when he discussed this topic on Joe Rogan's podcast. The point was that, as a platform, you cross a line which is very difficult to ever revert when you optionally censor your platform in response to political pressure because both sides are then forced from a game theory perspective to aggressively pursue censoring your platform i…
> Their only winning move was to stay neutral and do nothing but comply with legal requests. No? This narrative is a bit ahistorical - and it's fueled by this idea that hyperliberal boogeyman started censoring everything. If you look at what happened in 2017, Google started "censoring" things because advertisers threatened to boycott . The platforms couldn't stay neutral because advertisers became more and more conce…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if you would agree to the following equivalent: > State violence is being used to force a christian bakery to bake (gay/muslim/etc) cakes it finds objectionable. Who's the villain here? The more you open service to the public, the more control over your output you lose because then it becomes a matter of discrimination.
Why are they equivalent?
> The German court held that YouTube failed to make its enforcement authority clear in its contract with the account operator who posted the video. Does YouTube's TOS really not contain statements giving them the ability to stop hosting any video, at any time, for any reason? Edit: I guess not: the only content removal clause I see is this one, which is definitely not "we can remove your video for any reason, as long…
> YouTube unsuccessfully argued the video violated its policies on Covid-19 “misinformation.” It sounds like YouTube's stance is that the video may cause harm to their users; one of their criteria for removal.
Literally anything can be argued to be "harmful."
Naval Ravikant seems to be a divisive figure here but I think he made a profound point when he discussed this topic on Joe Rogan's podcast. The point was that, as a platform, you cross a line which is very difficult to ever revert when you optionally censor your platform in response to political pressure because both sides are then forced from a game theory perspective to aggressively pursue censoring your platform i…
Can you define "reasonable" here in an objective way that we could all agree on?
There's no such thing as neutrality. Leaving up a popular anti-vax video is just as political a decision as taking it down.