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.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t
That isn't the question I asked.
The question was too stupid for my liking.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
You make it sound like you believe that the judge made the wrong call in this case. In which case, yes you are advocating for the government to strip YouTube of their 1st Amendment rights.
No, you make it sound like I believe that. I never mentioned a judge, the government, nor the first amendment.
But you do a STELLAR job of telling other people what they believe as you've done throughout the thread. Seems like turnabout is fair game to me.
Your oily defence of a massive multi-national corporation’s censoring of someone’s free speech proves none of this is about principle, and we can put free speech in the growing pile of things you do not believe in.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Still dodging the question I see, and the question has a point when it comes to restricting rights versus banning them.
I wouldn't mind hearing your point.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert
What does that have to do with what I said?
I pointed out that the constitution itself places age restrictions on certain activities. Were the founding fathers against freedom?
Also, there are laws in all states about the age children must be to engage in certain activities. Is that an encroachment on their freedoms, or an encroachment on the freedom of those that wish to, for example, marry a young child?
Considering your argument, it appears you need to be worried about the company you keep.
Why do you keep bringing up the age of children and child marriage? Is this the first thing that comes to mind?
originally posted by: JDmOKI
Krazy said that Google isn't a search engine monopoly like any rational person would choose something else.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: jjkenobi
Perhaps the true purpose of the lawsuit was to prove in court that YouTube and Google does in fact censor conservative views that they don't agree with. Nobody expected them to change, but now it's irrefutable.
That wasn't proven though. It WAS proven that Google and Youtube will censor sites, but at no point was it established that the reasons are purely political in nature and that they are anti-conservative as well.
originally posted by: JDmOKI
You have liberal you tube armies flag videos and YouTube demontizes them so they can't make money off certain videos. You tube also hired tons of moderators and algorithms that make it so you don't see certain creators to save us from their fake news. 1984 where everyone gets one narrative from thealmighty Google.
If you support this crap go cash your soro's check
You're the one claiming that age restrictions are a violation of free speech.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert
You brought up child marriage and tried to tie me to it. Excuse me if I suspect your assessment regarding honesty and integrity is entirely fake.
Excuse me if I suspect your assessment regarding honesty and integrity is entirely fake.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Answer my question first. Why should I acquiesce to your requests if you can't be bothered to fulfill mine?
The answer is no.
I did not try to tie you to child marriage. I tied you to the same illogical argument child marriage proponents make. If you do not like the connection you have, find a better argument.
I also mentioned the constitution and age restrictions it itself sets.
Of course...you do not address that and only focus on the other example as a means to deflect.
My assessment, whether you agree with it or not, is real. Not fake. Not sure why you would say such a thing.
Regardless, you still have not been able to justify your illogical argument and have been given examples in which the very same argument fails basic logic.