Google defeats lawsuit claiming YouTube censors conservatives

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So then why do you frequent ATS? Every time a mod removes a post they are censoring their users according to you. If you're so principled I would think you wouldn't want to help such a company make their money.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I know. I was clarifying your beliefs. I've talked to you enough to know that you have a crazy unrealistic idea of applying free speech, but others may not have realized that yet.

We can only apply free speech one way or the other: Censor people or do not censor people. One is right, one is wrong. One is the foundation of democracy, the other is the foundation of totalitarianism.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So then why do you frequent ATS? Every time a mod removes a post they are censoring their users according to you. If you're so principled I would think you wouldn't want to help such a company make their money.

I love ATS.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have had just that exact epiphany recently.

Do you guys really believe PragerU should have been censored by google?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Yep, I say this every time--private companies should be able to do with their product what they will. (and before everyone freaks out, "private" as I used the word means "non-government owned.")

That doesn't mean that YouTube isn't censoring right-leaning content, though, it just means that they have no legal justification to treat all content the same.

I would agree, and hope that it stays that way.

I will say this, though--the more that it acts this way, though, and the things that they're doing with gun videos and the like, the bigger the chance that they will eventually go the way of Toys-R-Us, as its business model pushes more and more people to other places that offer the same products/services. Let the free-ish market sort it out.

This is a wonderfully cogent response. If the market deems YouTube's limiting of right-leaning content is deserving of reduced business, then such is the will of the market. If not, YouTube continues on as it has with no economic impact on its business. Doesn't really seem like there's a problem here.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have had just that exact epiphany recently.

I discovered there are more authoritarians in the world than people are willing to admit.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Then isn't it hypocritical to criticize others for agreeing with what YouTube does when you yourself are willing to forego your principles in regards to free speech?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Then isn't it hypocritical to criticize others for agreeing with what YouTube does when you yourself are willing to forego your principles in regards to free speech?

No. Hypocrisy is claiming to have moral standards to which my own behavior conforms. If I ever censor you or advocate censoring you, you can rightfully call me a hypocrite.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

But they weren't. All that happened is that their videos now require age verification before viewing.

Is it censorship if someone needs to be 18 to purchase an R rated movie or an M rated game?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

But they weren't. All that happened is that their videos now require age verification before viewing.

Is it censorship if someone needs to be 18 to purchase an R rated movie or an M rated game?

Guess it depends on how one defines 'censorship'. In the absolute sense I can see how he'd make that argument, but from the lens of modern society (and the realities inherent in situational aspects as you and other posters have already mentioned), it would appear to have satisfied it enough with the age filter.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

No those who censor and support censorship are censors.

So you think those that support the rights of others are censors. Got it.

Don’t worry, I wouldn’t stand on your property knowing that my human rights end there.

I don't think anyone mentioned human rights. We are talking about constitutional rights.

Why you do not support individual liberty and rights is beyond me.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

I discovered there are more authoritarians in the world than people are willing to admit.

And many of us have discovered that your adoration for mislabeling people as "authoritarians" because they disagree with your extremist view of how freedom of speech should be applied to a societal setting is more inappropriate than you are willing to admit.

Yet, you keep doing it.

Spare me the quoting of the definition of the word "authoritarian"--you were already passive-aggressive in doing that to me in another thread. No need to repeat the silliness...unless, of course, you feel that I'm infringing on your freedom of speech by requesting that, in which case, quote away. I don't want to go all authoritarian on you by placing even the slightest limitations on things...

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Do you guys really believe PragerU should have been censored by google?

No, but what I think that YouTube SHOULD or SHOULD NOT do is irrelevant to what they CAN do as a business entity. Again, philosophies of "should dos" are great and all, but real life doesn't reflect your philosophies, so stop berating people over that truth.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I know. I was clarifying your beliefs. I've talked to you enough to know that you have a crazy unrealistic idea of applying free speech, but others may not have realized that yet.

We can only apply free speech one way or the other: Censor people or do not censor people. One is right, one is wrong. One is the foundation of democracy, the other is the foundation of totalitarianism.

But a realist understands that totally free speech is impossible. Allowing you to have totally free speech can infringe on someone else's speech or other rights.

Youtube does the same or more to the left-leaning sites than they do to the right.

The guy who brought the lawsuit is an idiot because his claim is Youtube discriminates against his site because it is right-leaning which is false and because youtube has every right to even if they did. He is the same guy who argued against net neutrality and now is acting like a child because a corporation is exercising its rights.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have had just that exact epiphany recently.

Yeah it took me more that a few conversations with him to understand this too. I always argue free speech along the 1st Amendment guidelines but he argues it philosophically and seems to imply that the philosophical ideal idea of free speech should be applied universally in reality. It's just not possible though.

I seriously doubt they censor conservative content. That's a #load of content. I'm assuming they censor SOME conservative content. I also assume they censor some OTHER content as well. You just don't hear whining about that.

It's shameful but legally they can do whatever they want as it is a private entity. Now if it were turned into a public utility this ruling would have gone the other way I would expect.

a reply to: intrepid

They censor a ton of right wing content. They have no problem leaving elsagate and jihadi material however.

originally posted by: milypr81
a reply to: intrepid

They censor a ton of right wing content. They have no problem leaving elsagate and jihadi material however.

You wouldn't know what they remove from those others. You don't hear them complaining...like you are here.