Who wants to open a free-speech based forum site?
I recently joined GAB.AI because of its wide-open Freedom of Speech belief!
YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
591–600 of 763 posts
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#592This is due to US Section 230 legislation changing this week, spurred by the actions and legal battles of backpage.com https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2018/03/21/59... "The Backpage saga has galvanized lawmakers to act on bills amending Section 230 with the goal of stemming online sex trafficking. The legislation allows more state and civil lawsuits against websites related to online sex trafficking, f…
I don't buy this excuse. Backpage was always in a risky legal position without public support, but Alphabet (owner of YouTube) and Advance Publications (owner of Reddit) are well-positioned to fight for freedom of speech if they wanted to. These rules are being rolled out because they want to, not because they're forced to. The Reddit bans in particular banned a wide swath of behaviors that are completely legal and n…
>Alphabet (owner of YouTube) and Advance Publications (owner of Reddit) are well-positioned to fight for freedom of speech if they wanted to.
Why on earth would they "want to" threaten their share prices and upset their shareholders?
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#593Who wants to open a free-speech based forum site?
GAB.AI replaces Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Free speech! Won't sell your data!
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#594Who wants to open a free-speech based forum site?
For free speech, join GAB.AI free today!
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#595Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither are instructions for making grandma's famous chocolate chip cookies.
Writing and publishing a recipe is absolutely protected by the First Amendment as an inalienable right.
Well then so are instructions for ripping DVDs, in that case. There are legitimate reasons to rip DVDs and make cookies.
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#596Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, in my country you can own hunting or sporting weapons, e.g a rifle or shotgun, but it's almost impossible to posess a handgun for example, or a high capacity semi automatic weapon. But I have a tradition with my son of sending each other links of people in other countries shooting things up with their 50 cal machine guns and the like. I can't imagine why anyone would think that watching such things constitutes…
Because such decisions are often based on emotion and not logic.
Emotion is as much a part of the human decision-making process as logic, and it's sociopathic to act as though logic is the only part that matters.
My favorite for-example: one of those old great libertarian thinkers applied libertarian principles to the parent-child relationship and decided that a law that compels a parent to feed a child is an immoral law; parents should be free to let their children starve to death.
A triumph of logic over emotion? I guess, if you're okay with a society that permits parents to let their children starve to death without consequence.
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#597Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because when we organize a society, we can specialize into roles like policing and become more effective at defense as a whole?
This isn't like organizing roles at a startup company. We're talking about an individual's right to defend themselves against someone bigger and stronger, someone with a weapon who wants to take your shit or fuck you or just fuck you up. You put much faith in the Government, and I put it in the individual. What happens when your police force is turned against you, becomes incompetent, gets lazy, or just doesn't show…
Guns also equalizes the power disparity between a man and a woman. I see gun ownership as female empowerment, but the left never seems to mention that.
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#598Earlier quoted context omitted.
People don't value tolerance anymore. You only need tolerance for things you don't like or understand. Honestly, these sorts of things would work better if people acted locally more. It's human to be upset about the Parkland incident. It's not appropriate for a resident of Spokane to have strong feelings about Florida gun laws, let alone actually lobby for them. Discussing current events can be healthy, but only to t…
You're confusing valuing tolerance for tolerating the intolerable.
It should be tolerable for someone to do something stupid "over there" to sell their hipster beer if you're not involved. There are few issues where we have to actually force a nation-wide conflict to decide on a particular outcome.
Whoever is doing it, convincing YouTube and Reddit to force internet-wide struggles over these issues isn't choosing the right battles.
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#599Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Every social service other first world countries have, we can't afford. That is directly a result of our military spending. The US spends a lot on its military, but it's only about 15% of central government spending. When you look at spending as a percentage of GDP, we (3.3%) are not that far off from European powers like France (2.3%) or the UK (1.9%) whose defense we essentially subsidize through NATO. We just ha…
I can't recreate your math, but I don't think that's important for the point. By your numbers, there's a 1% difference. On the scale of the GDP, that is a HUGE number. I think looking at the absolute numbers matters. Free higher education for everyone would cost $75 billion (according to Bernie Sanders). Trump asked for an additional $116 billion dollars for defense. I don't see the logic in arguing if we can afford…
the 15% turned out to be a lowball, it's more like 17% if you use the 2015 numbers from wikipedia[0]. I got the %GDP numbers from wikipedia as well[1].
> Free higher education for everyone would cost $75 billion.
this I find hard to believe. the US government estimated that ~20 million students would be enrolled in college/university in fall 2017. assuming enrollment would not increase if college were free, that $75 billion works out to about $3750 per student. this substantially undercuts even in-state tuition at the average community college, which already receives significant funding from the government.
although I pushed back on that particular claim by Sanders, I still maintain that we have an allocation problem, not a money problem. according to 2012 data[2] the US government spends almost exactly the same percentage of its GDP on education as the UK, and we are in the high range of money spent per student in primary and secondary education[3].
i'm no expert, but this doesn't look like the kind of thing where you can just throw money at it and expect it to work. we should figure out how to use the money we already have to produce more similar outcomes to those in Western Europe.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_spending_...
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#600Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I do not feel bound to interpret the Constitution by only considering what the founders meant. That's probably the place to end this back-and-forth. We aren't going to hash out "rule by men" versus "rule of law" a thread about banned subreddits. But I think the right way to be unbound from what the Constitution means is to actually convince people to amend it. There are significant justice implications to ignoring…
I go by what the Constitution means. It’s meaning changes from person to person. And from era to era. I don’t feel bound to interpret it according to how the founders would interpret it. The second amendment means to me something different from what it means to you. As I’ve said all along In these threads, fight for your rights. Advocate for your position. I will fight to change public perception.
The point of the 13th amendment is to eliminate legal human trafficking once and for all. It's not reasonable to say that the meaning of that rule is allowed to change over time. And that standard has to apply for every part of the Constitution for the 13th amendment to have actual impact, otherwise it's just another holy text and can be ignored has a nice myth for simple people. But instead of people sinning by unclean food, the government is allowed to hold citizens indefinitely without trial because the constitution means something else now.