21–30 of 451 posts
Why should we care? The tweet says it's been terminated "for some reason". WTF. Maybe it's justified. Unless you can explain why they terminated and show you did NOT violate their, I don't care. Do your homework first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is apparently a large contingent of people on this site holding the belief that if your private platform is large then the government should step in to force you to host things you don't want to host. It's kinda funny, because it's effectively saying that they want to nationalize tech companies for being successful.
If you think about it, publicly traded companies are precisely that: nationalized. They exist as partly as government fiat, and partly of managerial control, but not as property. They are, by necessity, of somewhat unknowable, and almost always unaccountable ownership, ownership so diffuse it may be regarded as a generally representative subset of and equivalent to the general public. As such, can any public company…
This seldom aligns with the public's interest. For many (most?) companies, only the rich have any voting power, whereas the majority of the population just has to follow along.
Publicly traded companies are like a democracy where you get more votes the more money you have. The implication here is that your voice/needs are only important if you're rich, and are unimportant if you're average or poor (which kind of explains why the US is the way it is).
Once again, using the private platform argument here: YouTube (owned by Google) reserves the right to terminate and de-platform anyone's account who has been in violation of YouTube's guidelines and terms of service. You can criticise, protest, appeal, scream or throw a tantrum about it, etc but you should finally see that this can happen to anyone sitting on private platforms like YouTube. YouTube will never change…
No part of what you said is an argument.
Do private platforms have unlimited latitude? If not, what are the underlying philosophies underlying current limitations, and can those be seen to imply that other limitations should be made? Should private platforms have unlimited latitude?
Those are discussions that could be had. "Private things are allowed to do whatever they want" is not only a thought-terminating cliché that avoids all ethical or tactical judgement, but a simple falsehood.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is apparently a large contingent of people on this site holding the belief that if your private platform is large then the government should step in to force you to host things you don't want to host. It's kinda funny, because it's effectively saying that they want to nationalize tech companies for being successful.
Is nationalisation evil in itself? The private sector just doesn't have sufficient incentive to serve the public over their own interest. We've seen this time and time again.
Once again, using the private platform argument here: YouTube (owned by Google) reserves the right to terminate and de-platform anyone's account who has been in violation of YouTube's guidelines and terms of service. You can criticise, protest, appeal, scream or throw a tantrum about it, etc but you should finally see that this can happen to anyone sitting on private platforms like YouTube. YouTube will never change…
There is apparently a large contingent of people on this site holding the belief that if your private platform is large then the government should step in to force you to host things you don't want to host. It's kinda funny, because it's effectively saying that they want to nationalize tech companies for being successful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is apparently a large contingent of people on this site holding the belief that if your private platform is large then the government should step in to force you to host things you don't want to host. It's kinda funny, because it's effectively saying that they want to nationalize tech companies for being successful.
You are right. The US has basically been a communist country since the 70s when it passed the ADA requiring businesses not only to serve the disabled but spend money to make sure disabled people can access their services. There’s basically no difference between the US and the USSR ever since.
Why should we care? The tweet says it's been terminated "for some reason". WTF. Maybe it's justified. Unless you can explain why they terminated and show you did NOT violate their, I don't care. Do your homework first.
Why should we care? The tweet says it's been terminated "for some reason". WTF. Maybe it's justified. Unless you can explain why they terminated and show you did NOT violate their, I don't care. Do your homework first.
Guilty until proven innocent!
The Linux Experiment is probably my favourite linux-focussed YouTube channel. Nick has been doing absolutely fantastic work and his channel being permanently deleted would be an absolute travesty and a clear mistake. He is producing high quality, thoughtful, inoffensive content. Here's to hoping the channel is rightly reinstated ASAP, along with an apology and explanation from Google. Also, if you don't know the chan…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is apparently a large contingent of people on this site holding the belief that if your private platform is large then the government should step in to force you to host things you don't want to host. It's kinda funny, because it's effectively saying that they want to nationalize tech companies for being successful.
The government should step in to enforce data standards and data-transfer functionalities so that large tech companies do not have oversized monopoly like influence due to natural network effects.