201–210 of 233 posts
And, it's back up per OP. https://twitter.com/Twotafkap/status/1443250484458962953
The "review" that claimed it still violated policy: https://twitter.com/Twotafkap/status/1443099098438045697/pho...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is it sad that so much of our lives is defined by consumption of media and staring at screens Oh, come on. A Youtube video is culture just like ancient Greek plays are culture, or Sumerian cuneiform tablets. There is an overconsumption problem, but even if it wasn't there, that'd still be the culture that we'd want to at least archive.
I disagree entirely. This quote explains my view better than I could word it: > The term culture industry (German: Kulturindustrie) was coined by the critical theorists Theodor Adorno (1903–1969) and Max Horkheimer (1895–1973), and was presented as critical vocabulary in the chapter "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception", of the book Dialectic of Enlightenment (1947), wherein they proposed that popul…
That's why it needs to be preserved, especially if it's harmful.
We keep museums not only to be wowed by amazing artifacts, but also to know our past, what life was like.
And for the same reason, everything from Hitler's radio broadcasts to doge memes is worth preserving.
See my other response in the thread.
Vaccine misinformation, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>wanton violence >punching someone outside of a boxing ring I could probably find 100,000 unique instances of violence solely from big Hollywood studios on Youtube as we speak
Fiction and non-fiction are almost universally treated differently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is it sad that so much of our lives is defined by consumption of media and staring at screens Oh, come on. A Youtube video is culture just like ancient Greek plays are culture, or Sumerian cuneiform tablets. There is an overconsumption problem, but even if it wasn't there, that'd still be the culture that we'd want to at least archive.
I disagree entirely. This quote explains my view better than I could word it: > The term culture industry (German: Kulturindustrie) was coined by the critical theorists Theodor Adorno (1903–1969) and Max Horkheimer (1895–1973), and was presented as critical vocabulary in the chapter "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception", of the book Dialectic of Enlightenment (1947), wherein they proposed that popul…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s oft forgotten that U.S. intellectual property constructs were created not purely for the natural rights of individual creators, but as an incentive for public benefit: “to promote the progress of science and useful arts”.
It was common in the late 18th century to provide a rationale for the passage of a law, but the law itself by its very passage becomes legitimate irrespective of whether it fulfills its stated purpose. The rationale doesn't restrict the scope of the law, it's simply a belt onion: there because "it was the style at the time". Courts have ruled that the justification in the Second Amendment, of establishing and protect…
I'm making the upstream normative claim: so long as we have intellectual property (there are certainly moral and practical arguments against it), laws passed by Congress should reflect that intent: that temporary artificial monopolies also carry positive externalities to society at large. While incentives for creation are certainly part of that story, I think there is a strong case for reforming that balance: shortening copyrights, limiting/eliminating patents on software and business methods, and strengthening fair use and consumer rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is it sad that so much of our lives is defined by consumption of media and staring at screens Oh, come on. A Youtube video is culture just like ancient Greek plays are culture, or Sumerian cuneiform tablets. There is an overconsumption problem, but even if it wasn't there, that'd still be the culture that we'd want to at least archive.
Well, most of it is just trash that won’t make anyone less rich if lost. It’s like putting a script of Antigone and a sex advertising graffiti in Pompeii on the same level.
And, it's back up per OP. https://twitter.com/Twotafkap/status/1443250484458962953
The back and forth is what really reinforces that nobody knows what they're doing and content creators are really just at the whim of tech giants. Trying to come up with and impose policy on what humans produce is hard for the justice system, with it's multiple levels of courts and lawmakers and hundreds of years of jurisprudence. What hope does one company have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> does not bind the amendment to apply only to the establishment and protection of a body designated as the militia It does, but only because US code says that there's two militias. The organized militias (the National Guards), and the unorganized militias consisting of every able bodied man 17-45. Since the 14th amendment was written later, that bit of code is now interpreted to mean all adults. https://www.law.corn…
That's not the interpretation used by the Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller : > The Supreme Court held: > (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. > (a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope…
> (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
You can also see this clearly in US v. Miller, where sawed off shotguns were allowed to banned only because they had no military use (at the time). The unorganized militia must be allowed to use military weapons, which is why you can still go out and buy all sorts of crazy stuff like miniguns if you have enough money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not being technically savvy is such a strawman. I'm not missing the point of video streaming. Most of my career is because of video streaming. If you build a house of straw because you're not technically savvy to build it out of brick doesn't mean you get to complain that the wind blew it down even if it was a big bad wolf. If you don't do something right, it's nobody's fault but your own. It's often called growing p…
> If you build a house of straw because you're not technically savvy to build it out of brick doesn't mean you get to complain that the wind blew it down even if it was a big bad wolf. Let's apply this reasoning to a few other examples. Let's say you live in the jungle, and build your house to jungle building codes. Then, a logging company comes in and dismantles your furniture to make particle board for IKEA product…
If you don't rely upon youtube, you don't need to worry about youtube. If you choose to take advantage of the ease and convenience of utilizing their freely-available service, you have to deal with their rules. For most people, it's a small price to pay. For everyone else, there's stackoverflow.