When YouTube does stuff like this, does their viewership increase from the resulting commotion?
YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
501–510 of 872 posts
Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#502Earlier quoted context omitted.
You admit his is talking clearly then? Many people seem to chose when to give him that consideration.
You have to forgive his genius occasionally overwhelming the average human’s ability to comprehend speech. > “Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart —you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Demo…
His cognitive ability was off the charts - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Uvwbd75ujU
Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#503Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#504Earlier quoted context omitted.
And that’s fine. Not everybody can or has to be heard by everybody else. There no such as a thing as an expectation to be heard by others. That becomes more problematic and debatable once infrastructure companies such as a DNS provider or a hosting company refuses to deal with some content given that you remove the ability to create your own soapbox.
Just to note, the US legal definition of free speech, at least according to the courts, includes the expectation to be heard by others. There is actually such a thing as a right to an audience; free speech is not fulfilled if someone is excluded from any space where someone may hear them.
I'm going to need a source on that one. I don't know of any decision where the definition of free speech includes a right to an audience.
The owner of an auditorium or hall is allowed to not give platform to anyone. They get to decide who gets heard.
Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#505The extent of the "censorship" is getting ridiculous. It is an overreach of the platforms.
I disagree, if you don’t like it you can move to another platform. No one is forcing you to use it. For that matter “The Hill” can create their own. Always silly, the entitlement to someone else platform based on some misunderstanding of censorship and the 1st amendment.
Or, if you don't like it, don't watch the channel or leave a dislike or comment why the claim is wrong.
This isn't even a call to violence or targeted harassment. It's the opinion of a man about election results.
Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#506The extent of the "censorship" is getting ridiculous. It is an overreach of the platforms.
I disagree, if you don’t like it you can move to another platform. No one is forcing you to use it. For that matter “The Hill” can create their own. Always silly, the entitlement to someone else platform based on some misunderstanding of censorship and the 1st amendment.
It’s true that YouTube is a private entity and should be able to do whatever is in its profit maximizing interest.
But, the issue that people are starting to react to is - are some platforms a natural monopoly?
Is it useful to have all user-generated public video clips be aggregated by one central provider? The answer seems like it’s yes.
If there’s only gonna be one platform, or it’s socially optimal to have one platform - is it right to give control of that to one entity into perpetuity?
That a political question.
Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#507Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of the things you wrote as good things are (mostly) good things, glittering generalities that have no bearing on whether hard times are good or bad. To connect the two, you'd have to complete the scurrilous reference made that we are currently in a time of "weak men". You may or may not be aware that the "Hard times..." meme is widely used among not just stoics, but also fascist groups to suggest that the current…
> To have feelings isn't weak. I compare it to kids having allergic reactions. If you grow up in a sterile environment your immune system reacts to minor environmental irritants. And that is maladaptive. My parents were in their 20s during the Bangladesh independence war, when Pakistan engaged in genocide of Bangladeshis: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/genocide-us-cant-reme... . Even leaving aside the violenc…
Which is to say Mujib’s famine killed as many Bangladeshis as the Pakistanis did (as per the excellent book The Black Coat)
Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#508The extent of the "censorship" is getting ridiculous. It is an overreach of the platforms.
I disagree, if you don’t like it you can move to another platform. No one is forcing you to use it. For that matter “The Hill” can create their own. Always silly, the entitlement to someone else platform based on some misunderstanding of censorship and the 1st amendment.
The only silly argument I hear is when people think any discussion of censorship must involve the first amendment, or that complaining about censorship implies being forced to use a product.
If I go to a restaurant and eat some food and complain that food tasted awful, I am not saying that the restaurant should be forced by the government to make good food nor am I saying that everyone is forced to eat at that restaurant. I'm simply saying that the product served to me was not good.
Similarly when someone complains about Youtube engaging in censorship, you should not interpret that to mean that Youtube is infringing on first amendment rights, or that everyone is forced to use Youtube... rather it's an argument that the product Youtube provides is not as good as it could otherwise be. People are welcome to have an opinion and discuss whether Youtube's policies improve its service or are detrimental to its service without it devolving into a discussion about legal rights and government enforcement.
You can disagree with a position about censorship and make good arguments that Youtube censoring certain content or being the arbiter of truth makes for a better product, just as you can disagree with someone about whether a restaurant serves good food... but don't change someone's argument about the quality of a product into an argument about someone being forced into something or having their rights violated since no one ever made any such claim.
Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#509Users can't tell misinformation and information apart when the dislike count is hidden. Who would've thought.
Removing the dislike count was YouTube's renunciation of democratic ideals.
Now it's a media outlet just like the others.
Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results
#510If it's nonsense, then why censor it? If it's not nonsense, then why censor it?
This argument would work equally well to support spreading neo-nazi propaganda material. Trite catchphrases are nothing to base a belief system around. An argument doesn't have to make logical sense for it to convince millions of people. Especially not if they like the conclusion.
Who gets to decide what other people are allowed to believe, and on what basis?