ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
doser reminds town that he's perceived by many to be a self-impressed pretentious fop:
:thumb:
:thumb:
Last edited:
YouTube censorship
- Thread starter Tambora
- Start date
Racists have even worse to say about me and I'm about as concerned with either (and for much the same reason).
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
any other self-descriptive terms?
:thumb:
:thumb:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
awww
don't be so hard on yourself
i'm sure there's some retards here who still appreciate you
Just out of idle curiosity, who do you see as your core audience?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
of course, town
we're all retards
the amusing ones are the ones like you who don't realize it :chuckle:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
I'll let you rebut your own
Exactly.
Is the little guy still yapping about your heels?
Sad ain't it?
:sigh:
I think he's going to be sued by Klein at some point for infringement.
lain:
They've been doing both. And removing ad revenue is censorship if a channel has to close or reduce content even though they are following the rules.
I would say they would have to be removing it entirely to justify calling it censorship.
Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app
I'd say stopping even in part would also qualify.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
That would be to hand legitimacy to their implied claim to authority.
If they are just private companies doing as they please — or, in this case, acting possibly outside the law — then what they do is just style.
Or perhaps criminal.
Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app
Yeah, it's how one defines "censorship". If we say it is stopping any speech anywhere under any condition, then censorship doesn't matter as everyone would agree there should be censorship and the threshold of good or bad censorship would be subjective.
So bad censorship would be censorship because of the government or born of lying.
So YouTube, FB, and Twitter all fall under the second one. As private companies they aren't the government (in the US), but they invited everyone to come and post anything so they could get ad money, and promised that the best content or trending content would be presented so more people would have access to it. And then when people made the content for YouTube and ad money was generated, they suddenly pulled the rug out from a host of people that tended right and a few people that tended left even though the people that tended right were following the rules. Lying isn't against the law in many cases, like this one, but it is bad enough that people should shame YouTube, FB, and Twitter.
And many people are shaming them, but since in the world of the left might makes right, the might of enough people still watching YouTube justifies their lying. As any business that is run by leftist principles will find out, though, that running a business and promoting leftist thought cannot be done at the same time. But leftists cannot control themselves, they will champion their causes to the point of ruining their business. It's easier to make fish stew than it is to make a fish.
But in Europe, the government is getting involved with YouTube and how they censor.
And I cannot make you see reason. So I suppose we are at an impasse.
And to claim I said "All" is the foundation that makes your claims wrong.
So how should we define it?
As always bad? That would be difficult to justify.
As subjective? As I did.
I think the government would be justified in censorship in some circumstances. Although given that governments are full of politicians, it's difficult to imagine one doing so without lying.
OK.
I think I agree. Let the consumer beware.
Yeah, that's a sticky one. With the amount of regulations, it seems these companies are state-owned. However, I still think the material has to be made entirely unavailable for it to be called censorship.
No, that's just you playing at Sod's bit. You never raised the point in any respect until he waved it like a flag. I credited you with more sense than he exhibits and found your silence on the point confirmation, but that's life for you. And what follows is the rebuttal.
When you say Muslims or Methodists and make claims about them without qualification you are making statements of rule. That there are exceptions goes without saying and does nothing for you or against me. That's why I don't tend to bother with Sod. He's a second-rate rationalist.
I can't see what you don't offer. Responding to my rebuttal on liberals, by way of example, wherein I noted the clear numbers contravening your claim, you attempted to read minds in lieu of utilizing that faculty.
Last edited: