YouTube going full thought police.

[Elba]

This is straight out of an Orwell novel. I am disgusted but not surprised by how many people are for this. This generation is so conditioned to be self-loathing and have no faith in free thought. Are "wrong" ideas so dangerous that instead of being debated they need to be crushed and destroyed? This isn't the death of "alt-right" outlets, it's the death of free discourse. 21st century book burning. I understand that as a private company they have the right to do this, it doesn't make it the right thing to do though.

Why not, though?

[Voidism]

This is straight out of an Orwell novel. I am disgusted but not surprised by how many people are for this. This generation is so conditioned to be self-loathing and have no faith in free thought. Are "wrong" ideas so dangerous that instead of being debated they need to be crushed and destroyed? This isn't the death of "alt-right" outlets, it's the death of free discourse. 21st century book burning. I understand that as a private company they have the right to do this, it doesn't make it the right thing to do though.

They are not forbidden to spew their nonsense though. They just can't make money from it.

[Elba]

They are not forbidden to spew their nonsense though. They just can't make money from it.

But they can. On other platforms.

[Fojos]

They are not forbidden to spew their nonsense though. They just can't make money from it.

Except they are. The videos will effectively be completely hidden by youtube's algorithms.

[Elba]

Except they are. The videos will effectively be completely hidden by youtube's algorithms.

So go to another platform.

[Slybak]

This move is likely being made because Google's algorithm-approach-to-everything mentality has resulted in plainly non-extremist channels having their videos demonetized under their current system, resulting in a mad rush to alternative financing models like Patreon.

David Pakman did a segment on it back in April, demonstrating how ad revenue for his own channel had dropped to near-zero. I submit this not as a fan of Pakman or his show (I'm not), but to counter the dumb conspiracy theory that Google is just targeting "conservative" YouTubers when what they're trying (and failing) to do is demonetize, on behalf of skittish corporate advertisers, various racist mongrel idiots like Paul Joseph Watson and sundry antisemitic fascists like "TheGoldenOne."

[Fojos]

So go to another platform.

So you just go to another store when they refuse to serve black people.

[Elba]

So you just go to another store when they refuse to serve black people.

No because that is racial discrimination.

[Machismo]

Do you say the same when private clinics refuse abortions or when private churches refuse to marry gay couples? Or are you just a regressive hypocrite?



Who decides what information is misinformation? Youtube? You? Republicans or democrats? Public opinion?

If a private church doesn't want to marry a couple, good for them. If you can show me any church that has been forced to marry a gay couple in this country, I would like to see it.

As for private clinics, they shouldn't be forced to perform abortions. Of course, the clinics that do want to perform abortions should not be stopped from doing so.

- - - Updated - - -

No the left should stop bullying companies, but that's ok both sides will do it soon enough like Target learned the hard way. Also, when you have people take down "liberal" things that are racist and actually do violate policies, they start to call them racist.

I also love how idiots in this thread keep talking private companies and yet don't seem to like it when private companies discriminate against them.

- - - Updated - - -



Let's put up a sign "No BLM or Women's March Supporters" on a building and see how quick they try to sue.

It's not bullying, it's freedom of speech. Good for YouTube, good for Google. Freedom for everyone.

- - - Updated - - -

This is straight out of an Orwell novel. I am disgusted but not surprised by how many people are for this. This generation is so conditioned to be self-loathing and have no faith in free thought. Are "wrong" ideas so dangerous that instead of being debated they need to be crushed and destroyed? This isn't the death of "alt-right" outlets, it's the death of free discourse. 21st century book burning. I understand that as a private company they have the right to do this, it doesn't make it the right thing to do though.

How is this Orwellian?

if anything, it's straight out of an Ayn Rand novel.

[Elba]

As for private clinics, they shouldn't be forced to perform abortions. Of course, the clinics that do want to perform abortions should not be stopped from doing so.

They should not be forced but the doctors should lose their medical license.

[Fojos]

No because that is racial discrimination.

So? You're proposing a free market approach. Legislation is the opposite. In either case, you're either for or against free market and private decision making.

p.s. political discrimination against consumers is illegal in some states as well.

[Jonnusthegreat]

Do you say the same when private clinics refuse abortions or when private churches refuse to marry gay couples? Or are you just a regressive hypocrite?

I don't think you thought out your choices very well.

[Machismo]

They should not be forced but the doctors should lose their medical license.

Why? If a doctor doesn't want to do an elective procedure, he should not be forced to do so. I do not support unnecessary government entanglement.

[Fojos]

I don't think you thought out your choices very well.

Really? Either you let private companies choose their own clients or you don't.

[Elba]

So? You're proposing a free market approach. Legislation is the opposite. In either case, you're either for or against free market and private decision making.

No, I can be for one and against the other. Are you for racial discrimination?

Why? If a doctor doesn't want to do an elective procedure, he should not be forced to do so. I do not support unnecessary government entanglement.

If you can't perform necessary medical procedures because of your conviction you have no place being a medical professional.

[The One Percent]

I hope none of you who think this is great are going to bitch about what's coming with ISPs and the repeal of net neutrality.

[Endus]

This is straight out of an Orwell novel. I am disgusted but not surprised by how many people are for this. This generation is so conditioned to be self-loathing and have no faith in free thought. Are "wrong" ideas so dangerous that instead of being debated they need to be crushed and destroyed? This isn't the death of "alt-right" outlets, it's the death of free discourse. 21st century book burning. I understand that as a private company they have the right to do this, it doesn't make it the right thing to do though.

1> This has nothing at all to do with "free thought". The idea of freedom of thought, or the concept of "thought police" that is brought up in the title, refers to people being attacked for their secret thoughts, unexpressed. The moment you have expressed those thoughts, you have acted, and any consequences that derive are not based on your thoughts. It's the difference between thinking "I'd kill that guy if I could get away with it", and shouting "I'LL KILL YOU YOU BASTARD". The latter will get you tossed in prison, with good reason. Orwell's "thought police" were arresting you for the former.

2> You're free to engage in the discourse you want to. All that's happening here is that a private service provider, Youtube, is making decisions about what content of theirs they want to monetize and promote. Youtube has full license rights to the content you've uploaded, and their decisions to market it (or not) are exclusively theirs, not yours. They have made no promises in terms of views or monetization. In fact, you specifically agreed to let them use your content royalty-free for as long as it was hosted on Youtube; they don't even have to offer anyone monetization at all. That's a service they offer to attract content makers, but it is not in any respect a legal obligation. See Section 6C in the ToS: https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=CA&template=terms

3> There's plenty of content they've stated they do not wish to host, and that's covered under their community guidelines, which includes measures against hateful speech and harassment; https://www.youtube.com/yt/policyand...uidelines.html

What Youtube is doing is the equivalent of a bar owner telling a musician working for tips that they can't sing that "Fuck everything forever" song because it drives customers away, and if they're going to insist on it, they're not going to get the $5 tip he usually pays them at the end of a full set. And of course that's his right. Don't like it? Go sing your song somewhere else; you're totally free to.

[Elba]

I hope none of you who think this is great are going to bitch about what's coming with ISPs and the repeal of net neutrality.

I'm looking forward to it. Fuck net neutrality.

[Fojos]

No, I can be for one and against the other. Are you for racial discrimination?



If you can't perform necessary medical procedures because of your conviction you have no place being a medical professional.

No, you can't. If you're for legislation deciding what companies can and can't do, you are against free market. There is no middle ground.

[The One Percent]

I'm looking forward to it. Fuck net neutrality.

We'll see in a few years.