Youtube vs Youtube: Good or bad?

[Checkt]

Explain this part?

It's another thread whining about how one can't be racist on the internet anymore without repercussions..

Not sure what's difficult about that

[Ryme]

Just be a decent person and stop promoting segregation. It's not that difficult.
The social media and hosting corporations are heartless bastards but they go where the money is, and it is with the majority of people: those who don't want hateful content being spewed in their platforms.
There's still a lot of small groups of hate for neckbeards to go, though. Just find the best one to fit your needs.

In fairness, following appeals to popularity leads to dangerous places.

[dunhildas]

Hating Pewdiepie without actually knowing the first thing about him? is this 2010?



EDIT : Oh I just saw that this was Machismo,it was my mistake to expect common sense

He's the face of MMOChamp off Topic, you'll see him in every single thread here.

[Kumorii]

Not really a big fan where everything is going internet wise.

[Aggrophobic]

Definitely not a masterpiece but at least we know someone isn't trying to lie.

https://quillette.com/2018/12/20/pew...-the-internet/

Youtube has changed and it was bound to happen but there is definitely a divide between those who feel Youtube is better than it ever was vs those who feel Youtube is no longer a friendly platform for anyone. Jordan Peterson has a nice quote in there where PDP is what YT used to be and T-S is what YT is now.

There is no doubt we still use YT but who knows what may happen if the face of YT was gone. Let's all pray that PDP is still going strong. I have convinced my wife to subscribe to him so.... win?

Anyways, what do you guys think?

I think that if there is a quote from this Peterson guy in there, it's probably not worth reading.

[Jshadowhunter]

Don't you mean OURtube?

[Dsonsion]

In fairness, following appeals to popularity leads to dangerous places.

I won't say it doesn't, but that's how it works now: people are the customers and the customer is always right. As it stands, it furthers the causes I support. Additionally, I wouldn't try appealing to human decency when addressing someone that posts "Vivian James" memes to express their stance on anything, as I'm pretty sure those are completely useless.

[Deleted]

The only reason the organizers are choosing to side with them is because the organizers agree with the issue they have raised.

You keep ignoring that the agents controlling the platform are perfectly capable of making their own decisions and have literally all the power in question. Why is that? Is it just because it doesn't support the agenda you're trying to push?

Not necessarily true: acquiescence doesn't imply agreement. More dire scenarios make the point much more clear: if people don't protest the generalissimo under a dictatorship is it because they agree with his rule?.

I'm all for de-platforming certain commentators (xenophobes, for the most part). As well as exerting social opprobrium upon them.
But I won't pretend for a second that hosts agree with my complaint. Particularly not when livelihoods are at stake (which is nearly always). The agents controlling a platform also have families to feed: their freedom is tempered by necessity. Specially not because it masks a fallacious appeal to popularity.

[Dug]

I think it's bad but not for the same reason as forum debate warriors.

All I'll say is the platform is a jumbled mess and if it was ran by SJWs then they're doing a horrible job since I'm still getting recommended boring ass Peterson lectures, Shapiro FUCKS sjws with cock of LOGIC videos, ads asking me to support The Wall™ and surveys about how bigly good a job trump is doing.

[Leyre]

I miss the days when a cooking video in youtube would randomly lead to ghost and scary shit videos

[roboscorcher]

Pewdiepie represents the original idea of what Youtube was meant to be.

Youtube Rewind shows just how detached Youtube is from it's users.

Nah, he represents the second-wave "career-Youtubers."

Originally, Youtube was full of one-off videos. Channels were not monetized. People didn't make 100 let's-play videos.

[Jyggalag]

It's another thread whining about how one can't be racist on the internet anymore without repercussions..

Not sure what's difficult about that

What's that got to do with JP?

[Chinese Bootlickers]

I think it's bad but not for the same reason as forum debate warriors.

All I'll say is the platform is a jumbled mess and if it was ran by SJWs then they're doing a horrible job since I'm still getting recommended boring ass Peterson lectures, Shapiro FUCKS sjws with cock of LOGIC videos, ads asking me to support The Wall™ and surveys about how bigly good a job trump is doing.

I'd recommend an otter feed flush every other week.

[Dug]

I'd recommend an otter feed flush every other week.

Now THIS is content

[Checkt]

What's that got to do with JP?

he whines about how you can't be racist on the internet without repercussions anymore? ....I'm not sure what's confusing you i'll be honest.

First, Peterson believes that “white privilege isn't real”—but, of course, reverse racism is—and that intersectionality is “really comical,” because there are an infinite number of ways in which people can be marginalized. “What if you’re black and female? … What if you’re ugly and not very bright and gay and black and female?” he asks. The list goes on! Difference is inevitable! We can’t build a national ethos around accommodation, can we? Peterson goes onto explain that the scholarship around oppression is never scholarly, and can never be scholarly, because it is based on personal experience. Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman be damned!

This, DPAC, is what racism looks like.

[Endus]

Not necessarily true: acquiescence doesn't imply agreement. More dire scenarios make the point much more clear: if people don't protest the generalissimo under a dictatorship is it because they agree with his rule?.

It means that bending to his will is preferable, to them, to active resistance. Otherwise, they'd be actively resisting.

That's not really a fair comparison, however, since people didn't opt-in to said generalissimo's rule in the first place. And in general, such regimes resist emigration, which isn't the case with Youtube. So it's more like an American citizen, complaining that people have free speech in the USA. Their voice is heard, and no one really cares, because most everyone else disagrees. If they can't accept that, they're free to leave any time. If they find it preferable to stay, they don't have much business claiming that the free-speech thing is a deal-breaker, because their choice to stay proves that it is not.

With Youtube, if their actions bother you, use another service. Literally nothing is preventing you doing so. There are alternatives. You might not like those alternatives as much, but that's just an admission that you prefer Youtube, despite what you're complaining about, even still. And if you're going to continue using Youtube, they have little reason to change; you've agreed that you prefer their services as they are, to their competitors, by sticking around.

That's how markets work. If you're going to keep doing business with a company you claim to dislike, then your voiced opinions matter way less than your actions.


Youtube has all the power in controlling their services. They aren't being forced into acting against their interests by loud malcontents. And the loud malcontents protesting the bans aren't changing Youtube's position, either. The simple reality is that Youtube is banning people because they do not want to do business with people who do not act within the standards they have set. Youtube's decision. Not because of whiners complaining to Youtube. That's not what's happening, on Youtube or other services.

[Noxina]

"Daily bread". Oh no, hes praying. I feared this to be the case.

::Pulls off mask scooby doo style::

"Puritanical Christiaaaaaans" - gang says in unison
"SJWs were just puritanical Christians in disguise this whole time?" - Shaggys dumb ass
"Thats riiiiight gang, another mystery solved"

::audience claps::
::no one with a brain is surprised::

Jikes, someone forgot their pill today.

[Deleted]

It means that bending to his will is preferable, to them, to active resistance. Otherwise, they'd be actively resisting.

That's not really a fair comparison, however, since people didn't opt-in to said generalissimo's rule in the first place. And in general, such regimes resist emigration, which isn't the case with Youtube.

In the post I responded to you were not talking about youtube, but rather the general case: being kicked off a stage.
The rest of my post hints on why the comparison is fair. Specifically: their freedom is tempered by necessity. The amount of risqué content that you can host is in direct proportion to your freedom to do so. As is your capacity to (dis)agree with said content. In a dictatorship, that freedom is within close reach of zero.
For a more general case, they'll prefer to host this or that content over another based on their capacity, or lack of it, to resist societal pressure: from opprobrium to boycott. Agreeing is not necessarily part of the equation.

In the particular case of youtube (which sits on the other end of the freedom spectrum, funnily enough) arguing that they agree with anything other than the bottom-line is preposterous: youtube doesn't care one bit.

That's how markets work. If you're going to keep doing business with a company you claim to dislike, then your voiced opinions matter way less than your actions.

Youtube has all the power in controlling their services. They aren't being forced into acting against their interests by loud malcontents.

This I am not contesting. Only the absurd idea that platforms agree with the societal pressure du jour.

[Endus]

In the post I responded to you were not talking about youtube, but rather the general case: being kicked off a stage.
The rest of my post hints on why the comparison is fair. Specifically: their freedom is tempered by necessity.

I fundamentally and deeply disagree with the argument that their freedom is in any way tempered to begin with. Their civil rights and freedoms have never included any right to other people's private property against the stated desires of those other people. You have never had a right to other people's platforms, in any interpretation of civil rights and freedoms in any country around the world, at least that I'm aware of.

The amount of risqué content that you can host is in direct proportion to your freedom to do so. As is your capacity to (dis)agree with said content. In a dictatorship, that freedom is within close reach of zero.
For a more general case, they'll prefer to host this or that content over another based on their capacity, or lack of it, to resist societal pressure: from opprobrium to boycott. Agreeing is not necessarily part of the equation.

The only societal pressure that significantly matters to a company's business is pressure that results in a loss of sales/servicing. In the case of companies like Youtube and Patreon, they've arguably lost more business from the individuals they've banned, willfully, than in any reaction by their user base to said bans. And they knew they'd lose that business; that was a price they were willing to pay to remove that individual.

If a company isn't losing significant business, a lot of users complaining but still using their services is just noise. Meaningless, purposeless noise. The only reasons a company has to act in response to complaints is if A> they will lose business by not responding, to a degree they find unacceptable, or B> they agree with the content of those complaints.

The "social opprobrium" only matters is it causes loss of business. If it doesn't, not even the complainers are willing to act on their complaints, so why should the company? No real pressure is being applied.

In the particular case of youtube (which sits on the other end of the freedom spectrum, funnily enough) arguing that they agree with anything other than the bottom-line is preposterous: youtube doesn't care one bit.

That's essentially my point.

Either the complaints cause enough loss of business to get Youtube to act, an argument which has never been provided any basis in fact.
Or Youtube just agrees with the meat of the complaint and acted accordingly; the user that complaints are being made about really did violate Youtube policies and/or ethics.

This I am not contesting. Only the absurd idea that platforms agree with the societal pressure de-jour.

It's either that they agree, or that it's losing them so much business they feel forced to agree.

If you're going to argue the latter, I'm going to expect comprehensive, objective evidence to back that up. Otherwise, I'll just take Youtube et al at their word(s).

I'm making this point as a counter to the "SJW complaints are making Youtube/etc act against their own policies/interests" nonsense. That's straight-up not happening, and it's a ridiculous argument. Those complaints have no power whatsoever to effect any change.

[Deleted]

I fundamentally and deeply disagree with the argument that their freedom is in any way tempered to begin with. Their civil rights and freedoms have never included any right to other people's private property against the stated desires of those other people. You have never had a right to other people's platforms, in any interpretation of civil rights and freedoms in any country around the world, at least that I'm aware of.

Freedom is not only what your state decides it is. For reference: the labor market is hardly free when your livelihood depends on it. Of course this conundrum doesn't deny the freedom their state grants: they're lawly free to starve to death.
I'm not even touching on the people that demand their content be hosted. Only the freedom of a platform to decide what to host. It is tempered in that sense. Not in what the state will tolerate.

The only reasons a company has to act in response to complaints is if A> they will lose business by not responding, to a degree they find unacceptable, or B> they agree with the content of those complaints.

It's either that they agree, or that it's losing them so much business they feel forced to agree.

compare this to the post I contested:
The only reason the organizers are choosing to side with them is because the organizers agree with the issue they have raised.

I responded that it wasn't necessarily true.
You've now introduced another reason. Which clearly demonstrates that your former claim that there was only one reason was not necessarily true.

I will not make the case that they feel forced to anything. I am making the case that platforms agreeing with the complaint is not the only reason why they decide to host, or not, this or that content.
So uh, thanks for making my case, I guess. This was unnecessarily tiring.




As an aside, some organizations do have a degree of a right to other people's private platforms, when the state demands representation quotas. In particular political parties during election cycles, or televised religious services, like liturgy, for diverse faiths (though this last one falls more often on the territory of publicly owned platforms).