351–360 of 701 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's only a fallacy if there is no demonstrable slope.
It's only a fallacy if you think YouTube owes anyone free platform access and to uphold free speech as a private entity. They don't.
One effective way to protest this would be to report videos by high-profile companies such as Microsoft, Amazon, and Google itself. Take a few minutes to look for a video about Azure or AWS or GCP, or a video of a presentation at a conference around such things, and report it as Inappropriate content citing the relevant terms of service. Be very careful only to report content that conforms to the above description —…
That's probably a great way to get your own Google account banned, and there is no way in hell I'm risking that.
Yes. You need to keep a good balance in your social credit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While Google created that walled city, they also destroyed every other city into a pile of rubble after tapping into endless resources from a completely unrelated industry. YouTube had an unfair advantage over just about any other company trying to build something similar. Google is famous for making things free until they are not, than your screwed. I like when they arbitrarily change rules about SEO, AMP's and such…
Is there a way to disable amp in my browser? It’s hard to get to the real sites
Apparently it's "for our own good" not to have the option to turn it off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vimeo isn't clean, they banned Alex Jones for believing (edit: and yes, saying) unacceptable things.
Your edit doesn't go far enough. He encouraged hate against the parents of the children killed at the Sandyhook mass shooting. Yes, Jones has a right to be a crackpot, but it ends when it infringes on the rights of the people Jones' audience harassing.
Emperor G built a beautiful walled city, inviting everyone in, encouraging them to paint their houses whatever color they like. A year later, Big G banned blue houses. If you didn't like the rules, you were more than welcome to build your house outside the city and paint it whatever color you like. Only most people don't leave - blue is just one color and they weren't very interested in it anyway. Besides, the city i…
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to be willfully ignoring the demonstrable harm he causes. You're promoting a false balance. You're saying "Alex Jones robbed a bank, other people eat their coworkers' lunch, so who are we to judge?" Absolute nonsense.
If demonstrable harm is your standard, please just announce you don't believe in free speech and move along. Everybody advocating for the wrong stance on politics creates demonstrable harm.
No company is obligated to provide that platform for him. When judging a company for what content they decide they don't want to host, spinning "vimeo banned Alex Jones" as negative is ridiculous.
Edited: he can't actually say whatever he wants even on his own platform. There's actually a lawsuit against him right now. Too many internet folk don't actually know what "free speech" means and I should not validate such ignorance.
Emperor G built a beautiful walled city, inviting everyone in, encouraging them to paint their houses whatever color they like. A year later, Big G banned blue houses. If you didn't like the rules, you were more than welcome to build your house outside the city and paint it whatever color you like. Only most people don't leave - blue is just one color and they weren't very interested in it anyway. Besides, the city i…
Quoted post unavailable.
The same argument could be used to ban any videos showing weapons being used (target practice or demonstration dummies) or any martial arts. Because who knows whether viewers will use that knowledge against live targets. That would include a ban of all military combat and training videos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's only a fallacy if there is no demonstrable slope.
It's only a fallacy if you think YouTube owes anyone free platform access and to uphold free speech as a private entity. They don't.
Its more about the arbitrary practices which affect people’s livelihood while youtube retains all the profits from content it eventually disagrees with
This anticompetitive behavior can be curbed using the people’s government in ways that have nothing to do with free speech
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your edit doesn't go far enough. He encouraged hate against the parents of the children killed at the Sandyhook mass shooting. Yes, Jones has a right to be a crackpot, but it ends when it infringes on the rights of the people Jones' audience harassing.
You may be applying an uneven standard by wanting to ban the speech that turns your stomach, but not the speech that turns the Corporate Overlord's stomachs. You could argue that hacking videos encourage computer crime - the counterargument would be that there are plenty of reasons to talk about something other than to actually encourage people to do it. In fact, Alex Jones' defense in one court case he was in was th…
Claiming that the families of shooting victims are actually "crisis actors" would not be tolerated under British forms of slander/libel law; Nazi apologism/fetishism or rallying is not tolerated under German laws. These societies aren't just fine, they are actually the better for it.
If you feel that Germany or the UK are dystopias where ideological dissent is brutally suppressed, well, that's just your opinion, man.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You forgot the part about how Emperor G would come and burn your house to the ground if you tried to build outside the city because building houses was his idea. But wait, they didn't invent building houses. But Arbiter W lives in the walled city and the Emperor gives him gifts. Arbiter W considers Emperor G to be the person who owns the idea of building houses, and Aribter W is the one that sent the arsons out to yo…
I'm sorry, this just flew over my head. What is this analogy about? Is Google DoS'ing third party websites? Deranking them? Suing for patent infringement? Who's W?