Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Media
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-10-2019, 04:16 PM
 
20,955 posts, read 8,632,436 times
Reputation: 14050

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolom View Post
I just love the whole "it's a private company and they can do what they want" line coming from progressives. But cake shops and pizza joints are forced to do business with whom the government says they must and progressives applaud.

As if.
You aren't the guy who shot up the Pizza shop, are you?

Do you really think the "man on the street" prog cares one iota about a cake shop? And obviously a cake shop is not the same as a audience of BILLIONS......

If I write an article about Murdoch ruining the world and created a office full of sexual abusers, will Fox run it on their web site? Do they HAVE TO?

It's really simple. I cannot even imagine folks like you are serious in your argument - as it would mean that Liberals could sue or shut down all those billionaire financed echo chambers if they didn't publish AND PAY us.

Easy-peasy. If I start a home improvement web site I don't have to give Alex Jones a platform there. Or do I?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-10-2019, 04:23 PM
 
Location: Seattle
5,117 posts, read 2,150,050 times
Reputation: 6228
Here's my stance (coming from an old Libertarian). An extreme view is still a view. It's somebody's opinion and it's well within that persons right to voice his or hers opinion. Censoring one's view is horrendous. Welcome to the Nanny State. It's yet another stage of social engineering and mind control. Don't like opposing views? Why let's just get rid of it!!!!! Can't beat them? Just eliminate the competition and force your views down the throats of others. It's hogwash.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 04:44 PM
 
Location: A Nation Possessed
25,482 posts, read 18,618,666 times
Reputation: 22375
Interesting that when someone points out the obvious double standard--a private corporation has the right to ban/silence whomever they so choose, unless they are baking cakes, etc--the first response is that "conservatives are not a protected class."

Really? Did you fail that course covering the Constitution and Bill of Rights, or was that particular curriculum replaced with How To Stretch a Condom Over a Cucumber 101? Read the Bill of Rights. Every citizen in the US is presumably in a "protected class." As far as private corporations, they either do have the right to deny service to individuals they do not wish to serve or they do not. Having it both ways is nothing more than hypocrisy and discrimination--just the things you progressives supposedly abhor... yet engage in regularly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 04:45 PM
 
Location: Home is Where You Park It
23,856 posts, read 13,690,180 times
Reputation: 15481
Quote:
Originally Posted by pete98146 View Post
Here's my stance (coming from an old Libertarian). An extreme view is still a view. It's somebody's opinion and it's well within that persons right to voice his or hers opinion. Censoring one's view is horrendous. Welcome to the Nanny State. It's yet another stage of social engineering and mind control. Don't like opposing views? Why let's just get rid of it!!!!! Can't beat them? Just eliminate the competition and force your views down the throats of others. It's hogwash.
Which agency of the Nanny State is doing anything to interfere with Jones' free speech?

As a former libertarian, have you changed your mind about, for instance, anti-trust laws? Or about the right of a business make its own policies regarding its business?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 04:58 PM
 
Location: Home is Where You Park It
23,856 posts, read 13,690,180 times
Reputation: 15481
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
Interesting that when someone points out the obvious double standard--a private corporation has the right to ban/silence whomever they so choose, unless they are baking cakes, etc--the first response is that "conservatives are not a protected class."

Really? Did you fail that course covering the Constitution and Bill of Rights, or was that particular curriculum replaced with How To Stretch a Condom Over a Cucumber 101? Read the Bill of Rights. Every citizen in the US is presumably in a "protected class." As far as private corporations, they either do have the right to deny service to individuals they do not wish to serve or they do not. Having it both ways is nothing more than hypocrisy and discrimination--just the things you progressives supposedly abhor... yet engage in regularly.
This gets tedious. But - here we go.

It wasn't progressives who went to court for a decision in support of the right of a business to pick and choose its customers. Conservatives did that. AND WON. And declared it a huge victory for truth, justice, and the american way. Why, I'm pretty sure you could go back a couple years and find Jones ranting and raving, and squeezing out the odd tear or two about how evil it is to force a business to do business with someone it doesn't want to do business with.

I don't know what other progressives are doing here, but what I'm doing is pointing out over and over that conservatives got what they wanted and are now whining about it. And I say, tough nuts.

I continue to think today what I thought a couple years ago and have thought since the days of black lunch counter sit-ins (60 years if you're counting) - if a business is licensed by the public, then that business should treat ALL members of the public the same.

Edited to add - I am incorrect, SCOTUS did not uphold the right of a business to pick and choose its customers.

As far as YT goes, whatever internal rules/TOS agreements they are using to justify their actions with regard to Jones, they need to be applying those rules/agreements to everyone who posts videos. And those rules should be clear to all users right from the getgo.

Last edited by jacqueg; 06-10-2019 at 06:04 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 05:00 PM
 
Location: Katy,Texas
6,458 posts, read 4,040,847 times
Reputation: 4497
Quote:
Originally Posted by pete98146 View Post
Here's my stance (coming from an old Libertarian). An extreme view is still a view. It's somebody's opinion and it's well within that persons right to voice his or hers opinion. Censoring one's view is horrendous. Welcome to the Nanny State. It's yet another stage of social engineering and mind control. Don't like opposing views? Why let's just get rid of it!!!!! Can't beat them? Just eliminate the competition and force your views down the throats of others. It's hogwash.
What your saying is Hogwash. Youtube isn't the government. YouTube has only been around since 2005 and has only been really popular circa 2009. So what were people doing before YouTube existed? The internet existed well before YouTube even became a thing.

YouTube loses money because of it's edgy creators, that's why they kick people of the platform. If companies say they don't want to run ads on YouTube because they let everything from Nazis to people who abuse other users, et.al want Crowder was doing even though I don't think of Crowder as a bad person the amount of times he has insulted Maza is more than I ever insulted anyone period. if advertisers see that and tells YouTube they won't advertise on a platform tat gives someone like that power. What is YouTue supposed to do? Tell their entire community we are giving you a third or fourth paycheck cut again because the right don't know how to act on our platform.

This isn't about Crowder vs. Maza this is about YouTube being a victim of how it earns money if advertisers don't find their content "safe", YouTube will pull the unsafe content rather than have themselves and their entire platform take yet another paycheck hit from the same thing occurring over and over again.

Youtube will deplatform anyone who loses them money any company that doesn't is suicidal and won't last long.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 05:28 PM
 
9,897 posts, read 3,416,563 times
Reputation: 7737
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
You aren't the guy who shot up the Pizza shop, are you?

Do you really think the "man on the street" prog cares one iota about a cake shop? And obviously a cake shop is not the same as a audience of BILLIONS......

If I write an article about Murdoch ruining the world and created a office full of sexual abusers, will Fox run it on their web site? Do they HAVE TO?

It's really simple. I cannot even imagine folks like you are serious in your argument - as it would mean that Liberals could sue or shut down all those billionaire financed echo chambers if they didn't publish AND PAY us.

Easy-peasy. If I start a home improvement web site I don't have to give Alex Jones a platform there. Or do I?
So separate rules for small businesses and big tech companies? How progressive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 05:31 PM
 
9,897 posts, read 3,416,563 times
Reputation: 7737
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg View Post
This gets tedious. But - here we go.

It wasn't progressives who went to court for a decision in support of the right of a business to pick and choose its customers. Conservatives did that. AND WON. And declared it a huge victory for truth, justice, and the american way. Why, I'm pretty sure you could go back a couple years and find Jones ranting and raving, and squeezing out the odd tear or two about how evil it is to force a business to do business with someone it doesn't want to do business with.

I don't know what other progressives are doing here, but what I'm doing is pointing out over and over that conservatives got what they wanted and are now whining about it. And I say, tough nuts.

I continue to think today what I thought a couple years ago and have thought since the days of black lunch counter sit-ins (60 years if you're counting) - if a business is licensed by the public, then that business should treat ALL members of the public the same.
No, they didn't "win." Show me the story where Mystic Pizza's ruling was reversed. The Colorado cake shop ruling was narrow, and didn't address the issue whether a shop can refuse to cater events that they find objectionable.

Try again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 05:59 PM
 
Location: Home is Where You Park It
23,856 posts, read 13,690,180 times
Reputation: 15481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolom View Post
No, they didn't "win." Show me the story where Mystic Pizza's ruling was reversed. The Colorado cake shop ruling was narrow, and didn't address the issue whether a shop can refuse to cater events that they find objectionable.

Try again.
You are correct. They didn't win, and I will tone down my statements to reflect that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 06:04 PM
Status: "81 Years, NOT 91 Felonies" (set 2 days ago)
 
Location: Dallas, TX
5,789 posts, read 3,583,738 times
Reputation: 5687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scooby Snacks View Post
How does YouTube decide what to pull? What is "hate speech?" What is an "extreme view?" How exactly is that defined? This is a really bad idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
They will decide based upon the social/political opinions of the top executives. As a result, bashing certain groups, such as old white men and The Jew, will be lauded, and bashing various other groups (women, blacks, moslems, etc) will be condemned. I.E... the typical hypocritical double standard that is prevalent today.
Bashing will be condemned ONLY if it's clearly set out to stoke contemptuous attitudes against people who have't hurt, harmed, or demeaned others - or shows a callous, willful indifference about doing the same. The same goes for attributing "superior" or "inferior" qualities toward certain groups of people (e.g. whites are morally superior, Jews are money-grubbing power-trippers out to take over the world, blacks are genetically predisposed to laziness and criminality, and so forth).

Mere polite, reasoned criticisms of those groups - however off-target - would very likely be safe (What makes the behavior of whites as a whole so different from other groups? What historic factors caused Jews to be disproportionately represented in the "halls of power, finance, and culture", what factors tend to cause blacks more likely to be unemployed or arrrested?) I have my own answers for these, but that's for another post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJJersey View Post
They’ll just ban all the conservative videos. It’s okay, other sites are now competing with YouTube the big brother.
There's a difference between conservative and extreme right. Conservatives (ideally, at least) simply find insufficient evidence that certain progressive ideas are either false or insufficiently supported. Also qualifying as "conservative" is favoring a slower or less broad scope of changes, especially ones they will see as doing too much damage to the system too quickly.

Extreme right wants to return to the "old school" ways of doing things (i.e. go back to cultural attitudes and governmental practices that were popular in suburban 1950s - or at latest early 1990s - America); namely for going against the vaguely defined "tradition", "natural order", or they're aggravated about "once again, we have to admit the common sense and values I was brought up to believe are false". Yes, even these might be safe to post so long as they don't promote disgust-filled contempt at historic "out groups".

But speech that clearly seeks to "keep inferior" any historically out-group merely because of not wanting to give these people a seat at the round table - especially if it advocates discrimination, segregation, physical attacks, emotional abuse, enslavement, or extermination -- THAT would NOT be acceptable on YouTube, and rightfully so.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
They will decide based upon the social/political opinions of the top executives. As a result, bashing certain groups, such as old white men and The Jew, will be lauded, and bashing various other groups (women, blacks, moslems, etc) will be condemned. I.E... the typical hypocritical double standard that is prevalent today.



Such as? I'm definitely looking for an alternative where I decide what I want to watch and what is appropriate for me to watch. A place where, if I find something is offensive to me... I simply do not watch it. My choice.
The reason there's so much objection to "hate speech"* is that such speech or other expressions more or less invite others to exclude or diminish others worth on unjustifiable grounds (see asterix for details). Such speech inspires others to think and act on the thought "THOSE people do not deserve access to my grapevines/informal information channels, helping hands, and active support against personal rivals that makes their day-to-day business of living less difficult", and that at best/least bad. It also creates an atmosphere in which outright discrimination, direct personal abuse (not just physical), or serious crimes can flourish and (worse) be pseudo-justified. THAT is why people object to hate speech and why so many people seek to restrict it - apparently including YT's top management.

*Here, I define it as speech designed to hurt,harm, degrade, marginalize, or exclude people based on non-harmful traits or behaviors)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Media

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:04 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top