It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Google defeats lawsuit claiming YouTube censors conservatives

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 11:01 AM
link   

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.

An empty and unsourced disagreement doesn't magically make you correct. Got a list for this "ton of right wing content" that was censored? It would help if you also had access to Youtube's censorship and content takedown policy as well.
edit on 28-3-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
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.


Youtube censors all sorts of content and I have yet to see any evidence the censorship was based solely on the political nature/affiliation of the material. There always seems to be a clear violation of it's terms and conditions.

In this case, the material was not censored. They simply placed an age restriction on the material and placing reasonable age restrictions on certain material is not only accepted practice, in many cases it is the responsible thing to do.

edit on 28-3-2018 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254




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?


PragerU is neither R nor M rated. So yes.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It's called an analogy. YouTube has their own guidelines for what they identify as mature content. If what the MPAA or ESRB does isn't censorship why would what YouTube does be considered censorship?

Hell, you don't even need to provide an ID to get around YouTube's age verification system. As long as you have an account and have your birth date set to say you're over 18 then you're set.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert




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


You believe you're supporting the rights of others by defending censorship?



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


You are.



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


Spoken as you defend google censoring people. I would laugh if it wasn't so worrying.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254




It's called an analogy. YouTube has their own guidelines for what they identify as mature content. If what the MPAA or ESRB does isn't censorship why would what YouTube does be considered censorship?


It is censorship, and you can watch videos of people arguing in congress why that is the case.




posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




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.


Let's be honest, both you and Slap have confused the 1st with the principle it is meant to enshrine, and have framed your outlook of free speech on such a circular misunderstanding.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




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.


"Realists" used to think abolishing slavery was impossible. I don't subscribe to that argument.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

What the PMRC was demanding is very different than a rating system.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi




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.


The ease with which you folks defend the rights of corporation to censor people is astounding.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254




What the PMRC was demanding is very different than a rating system.


You should double check that one.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Grimpachi




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.


The ease with which you folks defend the rights of corporation to censor people is astounding.


Weeellllllllll we wouldn't have to if some would stop complaining about the corp's exercising those rights.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t




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.


"Realists" used to think abolishing slavery was impossible. I don't subscribe to that argument.

Um... Slavery isn't abolished. It was only made illegal, but it still exists in the world. Hell it even still exists in the US.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t




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.


Let's be honest, both you and Slap have confused the 1st with the principle it is meant to enshrine, and have framed your outlook of free speech on such a circular misunderstanding.

Let us be honest? Who is "us"? You have a mouse in your pocket?



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: intrepid




Weeellllllllll we wouldn't have to if some would stop complaining about the corp's exercising those rights.


Your principles shift as much as the sands they are built on.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: intrepid




Weeellllllllll we wouldn't have to if some would stop complaining about the corp's exercising those rights.


Your principles shift as much as the sands they are built on.


You have a cogent point?



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Let us be honest? Who is "us"? You have a mouse in your pocket?


Maybe it was a matter of ignorance and not honesty. Either way, this one misapprehension led to countless others.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Let us be honest? Who is "us"? You have a mouse in your pocket?


Maybe it was a matter of ignorance and not honesty. Either way, this one misapprehension led to countless others.

I saw it as a matter of you projecting your opinions as facts and trying to sucker us into agreeing with you.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: intrepid




You have a cogent point?


I was pretty explicit about it.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




I saw it as a matter of you projecting your opinions as facts and trying to sucker us into agreeing with you.


Ignorance then. You saw it wrongly.




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join