261–270 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a lawyer (barrister?), but no. Generally, businesses are not obligated to do business with folks they dislike.
This is not true. Courts continually hold that a business must serve persons they don't like or agree with.
This is difficult for me. I'm not pro censorship, but I would like a way to not have to hear about Russell Brand at all. Is that possible? I don't want to hear from him or about him. I don't want to hear from people that like him. I didn't want to hear Radio 4 talking about it this morning. I don't want to stop his free speech, I just want to avoid him
Yes: don't watch his videos and don't read or watch news coverage about him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not what he does on Youtube. His channel is focused on political and social commentary
his channel is focused on woo and conspiracy.
Putting aside recent allegations, it's disappointing what has happened to Russell Brand's YouTube channel. I watched some of his videos a few years ago and they were interesting discussions of the news with a particular emphasis on questioning everything which I see as a healthy habit. Inevitably though, the algorithm steered the videos to become more clickbaity, divisive, and frankly crazy. He probably saw that outr…
He steered. We should not remove his agency for the content he wrote, said, recorded, and uploaded.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You need to understand that the majority of people simply don't agree with you. They choose platforms with moderation (aka censorship) and stay away from those that don't.
In the beginning YouTube was popular and had very little moderation. You could watch illegal streams of many films and movies and you could find some porn before it’d be taken down. Advertisers are what demand moderation not users so as to protect their bottom line. It’s disingenuous to say otherwise and ignores a multitude of services that became and still are incredible popular with little moderation.
Please provide examples.
So we can compare them to the likes of Meta, Netflix, Spotify, Apple, Reddit etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can say the same thing about Jordan Peterson, no? Content from 5-10 years ago was interesting. Now I have him muted on X.
I'm convinced that these platforms are a huge driver, if not the main driver of social and political polarisation.
No clue whether Brand is innocent or guilty before the law, but if he's exonerated would he have grounds to sue YouTube/Google or do the terms of service allow YouTube to demonetize people based on accusations even if they turn out to be false at a later time?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a court of law. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a philosophical concept that many legal systems subscribe to in the context of criminal law. > Similar to when people cite the 1st amendment in situations where a private company is taking action Indeed, it’s very similar in the sense that the concept of the freedom of speech goes way beyond the 1st amendment. It existe…
> Yeah, including immoral actions that others may disagree with. The morality in this instance does not follow this principle. If people find these allegations credible—and most should—the morally correct action is to deplatform him and delete his content.
Why should most people find these allegations credible? I do not believe there is a police report, arrest, and let alone a trial. These are currently just allegations, their credibility has not been adjudicated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can say the same thing about Jordan Peterson, no? Content from 5-10 years ago was interesting. Now I have him muted on X.
I'm convinced that these platforms are a huge driver, if not the main driver of social and political polarisation.