Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 76

Thread: This isn't politics - Better pay attention

  1. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drauz View Post
    Maybe it's against their religion to host those views.
    I don't think you're seeing the difference here.

    Forcing a baker to write something = removing the baker's freedom of speech
    Removing free speech Twitter doesn't approve of = removing said user's free speech

    In both cases it is an attack on free speech, yet you somehow equate forcing a baker to do something against his will to a supposed "free speech platform" censoring speech the platform doesn't like.

    Last edited by Tgo01; 04-19-2021 at 02:38 PM.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Kekistan
    Posts
    6,773
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Methais View Post
    Unrelated: For what it's worth, PornHub only took 9 days to get 50 million users IIRC.


    The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. ~ Marcus Aurelius
    “It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”
    ― George Orwell, 1984

    “The urge to shout filthy words at the top of his voice was as strong as ever.”
    ― George Orwell, 1984

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    PWC, VA
    Posts
    8,532
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tgo01 View Post
    I don't think you're seeing the difference here.

    Forcing a baker to write something = removing the baker's freedom of speech
    Removing free speech Twitter doesn't approve of = removing said user's free speech

    In both cases it is an attack on free speech, yet you somehow equate forcing a baker to do something against his will to a supposed "free speech platform" censoring speech the platform doesn't like.

    I mean you only have freedom of speech against the gov't, they can't do anything to stop or retaliate against it. Literally everyone else in the world can do whatever they want to in response to what you say, just has to be legal.

    Youtube saying "your ideas are dangerous" and stopping your ability to share those ideas on their platform is a pretty close approximation of that baker.
    No, I am not Drauz in game.

  4. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drauz View Post
    I mean you only have freedom of speech against the gov't, they can't do anything to stop or retaliate against it. Literally everyone else in the world can do whatever they want to in response to what you say, just has to be legal.

    Youtube saying "your ideas are dangerous" and stopping your ability to share those ideas on their platform is a pretty close approximation of that baker.
    This is correct.

    It's also correct that they're giant hypocrites about it.
    Discord: Methais#5420
    [Private]-GSIV:Nyatherra: "Until this moment i forgot that i changed your name to Biff Muffbanger on Lnet"
    Quote Originally Posted by Back View Post
    I am a retard. I'm disabled. I'm poor. I'm black. I'm gay. I'm transgender. I'm a woman. I'm diagnosed with cancer. I'm a human being.
    Quote Originally Posted by time4fun View Post
    So here's the deal- I am just horrible



  5. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drauz View Post
    Youtube saying "your ideas are dangerous" and stopping your ability to share those ideas on their platform is a pretty close approximation of that baker.
    Not really. In the case of the baker the government wants to force the baker to say something he doesn't agree with.

    In the case of YouTube, a supposed PLATFORM, the "platform" decides who can and cannot engage in free speech.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    PWC, VA
    Posts
    8,532
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tgo01 View Post
    Not really. In the case of the baker the government wants to force the baker to say something he doesn't agree with.

    In the case of YouTube, a supposed PLATFORM, the "platform" decides who can and cannot engage in free speech.
    And you are wanting the government to force Youtube to do exactly that. You want your cake and to eat it too.
    No, I am not Drauz in game.

  7. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drauz View Post
    And you are wanting the government to force Youtube to do exactly that.
    A) You're wrong. I don't want the government to force Google to say something they don't agree with, I want them to allow people on their "platform" to say what they want without censorship.
    B) I'm not even asking the government to force Google to allow people to say what they want without censorship, I want Google to be treated like a publisher if they want to censor people. Newspapers censor people all the time because they are a publisher and are thusly held liable for anything written in their newspaper. Google needs to be treated the same; they are either a platform which allows people to freely express their opinions and are afforded protection from lawsuits, or they are a publisher which can freely censor whoever they want but they open themselves up to lawsuits.

    Why do you think any company should be treated differently than the rest? Is it because you agree with their politics and censorship?

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    31,089
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tgo01 View Post
    A) You're wrong. I don't want the government to force Google to say something they don't agree with, I want them to allow people on their "platform" to say what they want without censorship.
    B) I'm not even asking the government to force Google to allow people to say what they want without censorship, I want Google to be treated like a publisher if they want to censor people. Newspapers censor people all the time because they are a publisher and are thusly held liable for anything written in their newspaper. Google needs to be treated the same; they are either a platform which allows people to freely express their opinions and are afforded protection from lawsuits, or they are a publisher which can freely censor whoever they want but they open themselves up to lawsuits.

    Why do you think any company should be treated differently than the rest? Is it because you agree with their politics and censorship?
    A newspaper has an editor and filters every single thing that is posted by them. When a newspaper goes out, they know every single thing that is in the newspaper. Do you want every single thing you ever say on Facebook, Youtube, etc to have to be watched or monitored by a person before they allow it to be posted?
    Last edited by Gelston; 04-19-2021 at 04:15 PM.
    Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

  9. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelston View Post
    Do you want every single thing you ever say on Facebook, Youtube, etc to have to be watched or monitored by a person before they allow it to be posted?
    That's exactly what I don't want, I want them to be an actual platform and stop censoring everything, but if they insist on acting like a publisher then yes I expect them to be treated like a publisher.

  10. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelston View Post
    No, really. There is a market for it. Twitter wasn't shit until the Arab Spring popularized it. It took google over a decade to get big.

    PornHub doesn't moderate comments, so you can go post there too.
    It did not take anything close to a decade for google to take over, they jumped into the top 10 in Feb of 2001 and were the number one most visited website in June of 2006, at that time youtube was number 8 or 9, and google bought them 4 months later, making them the clear behemoth in the group, yet no one said anything about anti-trust then.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •